I raise the point Cosmic, as nobody else seems to ever have questioned the lavish resources being put into climate modeling and to what purpose?
Bill who have the greatest respect for incidentally, has a point above in that modeling ie; GCM's, helps to understand the complex processes that make up and are part and parcel of the global climate.
And with that I wholeheartedly agree.

Unfortunately, the modeler creators of the GCM's have attempted to extend the writ of their GCM's from just getting some sort of understanding of the immensely complex factors involved the global climate to an instrument that predicts the global climate far into the future.
In doing this the climate modelers have taken it upon themselves, using the public credibility and respect for science to advance an agenda based on a highly restrictive and centralised authority , ie; theemselves, an agenda which is supposedly based on the output of these GCM's with themselves as the high priests whose knowledge, wisdom and foresight is the oracle that divines and translates the predictions of the GCM's and whose authority is not to be questioned under any circumstances as they are "Scientists".

And that is where it has all gone seriously wrong!
The GCM's as a global climate research tool only is to be commended.
As a political tool to re-engineer society involving highly authorative and centralised power structures using the supposed output of the GCM's as a political tool is beyond the pale for our democratic society.

The equivalent in what we normally regard as primitive societies are the shamans, the local witch doctors who using chicken entrails, divined the future for those who were prepared to pay substantial amounts for their divinations.
A lot can be learned from chicken entrails as to what sort of garbage went into the chicken and how it was treated by it's handlers.
What comes out can be used to get more chickens and the rest is just plain [censored], good for some purposes in small amounts but toxic if used in excessive amounts.
Sums up the way in which the GCM's are being used by the shamans of global warming / climate change quite nicely I think!

I would say it really does depend on how a model is used and for what purpose. Contextually, models can be used as a guide; however I would not go so far are as to say they can used to predict the future to the extent that we can simply go ahead and plan the next 10 years without the slightest scepticism of what they put forward, and the fact that there is a big difference between a global average and a local one.


Yes, well that’s another area for discussion, but not the basis of this thread.

IF? as i mentioned before, you have made your mind up on this, so it does not matter how much evidence there is that the gcms have failed, you will still not believe it.

as has been mentioned already, it is not about the models themselves, their purpose is clear, to attempt to model the atmosphere. the problem is in the weight they are given. they should not be published as established facts, because they are not facts, they are an opinion of how facts should be applied to a problem.

where should we go with models? due process, do it properly like other fields are forced to!

acknowledge clearly the problems and uncertainties with the process.

because of the obvious many unkowns that currently exist in this field, the output data should not be used for anything other than research, and any product that result from these models can be considered LESS reliable and LESS informative that the primary model.

in the end, the atmosphere is not fully understood and obviously not even to a level where decent prediction is possible.

I don’t think I have made my mind up on this because like any model, there is a theory behind it, and like all theories, they are all falsifiable!


Yes, it is not fully understood…agreed, so how much do we understand?

Earth-Sun Estimate:

Time-dependent, Luminosity-dependent, Mass-dependent, Velocity-dependent, Solar-perturbation-dependent Equation for Semi-major Axis of the Earth’s Orbit:

ds = 149,597,890.691*exp(ln (0.958)/Z*T) + prs*1000 – ((Ls/c2)*6.67259e+11*ssr*me)/((me*c2)/sqrt(1-(ve-orbit2)/(c2)))*(1 + da-p) [m].

Z = years AD plus, BC minus (time since initial value of 0.958) [Michael Hart 1978].
http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/Spring00/10-CHZs/chzs_planets.html

T = current time (years; AD)
prs = Solar Fluctuation Function (size of Sun)
Ls = Solar Luminosity
c2 = Speed of light Squared (299,792,458^2)
ssr = Seconds in a Year (~31559090)
me = Mass of the Earth [kg]
ve-orbit2 = Velocity of Earth in its orbit, Squared
da-p = Eccenrticity of the Earth (fraction)

Precis:

This has taken some time to put together, however hopefully it gives an idea of the direction of this thread in relation to climate, weather and Earth systems. It is more about understanding of weather and climate phenomena than it is an argument for a particular point of view, though it does look at Global Warming Theory in many respects.

Introduction:

Something I find decidedly lacking in the global warming debate in general is an emphasis on or demonstration of the fact that the science behind the debate is very complex. Where there are said to be concrete answers or understandings of concepts relating to the science, it is the oversimplification and ambiguous expression of how it supposed to work which appears be the most unhelpful. If more articulation, eloquence and discerning thought was put forward in the information we present and each point was addressed step-by-step, rather than board sweeping generalised statements or claims made, this would probably not arise to become as such an issue. When we say the science is not settled, what we should really be saying is the facts are only valid within a given range of certainty, no matter what our views. That said no one can really make the claim to understanding the climate and weather beyond that certainty, even the distant past.

I believe one of the most fundamental aspects of climate and weather dynamics that needs to be understood before we start venturing into generic claims is the physical mechanisms involved in atmospheric dynamics. More specifically, we appear to have an incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms by which greenhouse gas molecules in the lower atmosphere absorb, retain and emit heat energy. As yet, I have not come across a well-documented, empirically-robust account of how carbon dioxide (CO2), as an atmospheric greenhouse gas, influences and is influenced by the presence of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Most explanations I have encountered point to how water vapour (vapourous H2O) in the lower atmosphere responds to increasing CO2 concentrations. However these explanations do not appear to sufficiently cover the multitude of dynamics involved in this feedback process. Many explanations appear too inadequately to demonstrate the role the CO2 molecule plays in our climate and weather systems in terms of its actual molecular heat-transfer properties, e.g. radiative efficiency as a function of spectral bandwidth. I have seen numerous claims of CO2 serving a particular function with a vague, ambiguous or inconsistent description of the related physical mechanisms. I am disinterested in why the facts or certainties are not stated clearly, coherently and consistently, as long as the issue is addressed so we are able to begin moving away from this scientific quagmire. Possible avenues of investigation for clearing this quagmire are either more research, or more research transparency, and certainly a greater robustness in conclusions drawn.

At this stage, it appears that no empirically-robust and experimentally-confirmed physical mechanism has been put forward which adequately relates the increasing emissions of CO2 to the increasing concentration of the gas in the atmosphere, despite its plausibility. It is well-confirmed that we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. However what is somewhat less discernable is the extent to which these emissions are causing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to rise and a subsequent rise in the surface and near-surface air temperature. Confirming either a direct or indirect link between emissions and effects potentially requires somewhat more rigorous analysis, as correlations do not necessarily reflect causation. Assumptions involved in claiming a link may be numerous and, to a degree, require evidence beyond that currently available. If not for the fact that much questionable information has already been disseminated, including potentially misleading conclusions concerning the nature of the Carbon Cycle, some degree of reasonability and validity might actually be found in claims of anthropogenic global warming.

A very interesting post on The Ocean Plays A Deeper Game from Doug Hoffmans "The Resilient Earth" blog.

Some new research indicates that the oceans are a lot more dynamic in the rapidity and the manner in which they change and the huge influences on and the rapidity of many previously little understood and rapid changes in the past global climate.

And the source of the deep and very old ocean waters that initiated these fast paced climate changes of past epochs looks like they may have come from the Southern Ocean around the Antarctic.

I have been suggesting for some time that the Southern Ocean might possibly have a much greater influence on the global climate than has so far been recognised.
After all very little work has been done on the huge expanse of the Southern Ocean, the only ocean basin that links to all of the world's major ocean basins and the only place where there can be a route for a full interchange of various ocean waters both surface but particularly the deep waters through deep water currents in the ocean basins, major currents that in some cases quite probably have not yet been identified.

The little trafficked, by both commercial shipping and research vessels, Southern Ocean is the poor relative in the financing of research into the world's oceans.
The major economic powers from where most research funds originate are in the northern hemisphere.
So the research funds have been concentrated almost exclusively on the North Atlantic and some on the South Atlantic, the northern Pacific and the equatorial Pacific.
The ENSO is the driver of so much of the global climate that the flow through effects to the North American and European economies is very significant so that is where the research money has gone in the past, on the northern hemisphere ocean basins.

For the part I have highlighted in bold, I know this to be true. I believe it is particularly important from Southern Australia. There are atmospheric and oceanic teleconnections associated with the Southern Ocean.

Doing a simple calculation, you can estimate that water remains in the atmosphere for about 10 days (give or take a day or two), while it remains in the oceans for around 2-3,000 years.

The references to the distant past and the enormous concentrations of CO2 claimed ignore the fact that the atmosphere in the early eons didn't contain today's levels of oxygen (in fact, for a long time there was no photosynthesis at all) and it is not until recent geological time that we had a southern ocean or an Antarctica!

The distant past is very important. But there are break point in terms of relevance to the world we live in, including a breathable atmosphere, and a distribution of land and ocean masses that starts to resemble that of a planet on which species origination and evolution begins to populate the land and sea with creatures that we can readily relate to those since the times of the dinosaurs.

Surely the important modelling would be that which tries to include the recent glacial-interglacial sequences. Especially the last two.

Michael Hart’s 1978 Model of the Evolution of Earth’s Atmosphere

(See reference at bottom)

His starting conditions were:

• No Earth atmosphere;
• A geometric albedo of 0.15 (rock);
• And a starting time of 4.55 billion years ago.

He used time steps of 2.5 million years, and varied the composition of juvenile volatiles until the best fit to present conditions was reached. The main output results were as follows:

• His “best” initial gas composition was 84% H2O, 14% CO2, 1% CH4 and 0.2% N2.
• Most of the H2O vapour condensed promptly into oceans.
• Early atmosphere was dominated by CO2.
• The Urey Reaction later removed the CO2.
• Oxygen released by photolysis of H2O vapour and later by photosynthesis.
• This Oxygen destroys the CH4 (the Oxygen being consumed in the process).
• By 2 billion years ago, most of the CH4 was gone, leaving N2 as the dominant gas by default (it’s the only thing left!).
• Since then, there has been a slow build up of O2. By 420 million years ago, enough O2 and O3 had built up to provide protection from solar UV, making life on land tolerable.

It’s possible, by assigning plausible values to those parameters included in the models, to simulate the evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere in a manner that is consistent with the basic ideas of atmospheric studies and stellar evolution. It’s consistent with the temperature necessary for life to arise, the mass of the oceans, the volatiles in sedimentary rocks, and the composition of the present atmosphere.

In these models, once CH4 was gone and the luminosity of the Sun reached its current value. If the surface temperature was less than 278oK, a Runaway Glaciation occurs, and in none of the simulations is it ever reversed. This occurs 2 billion year ago if the Earth were located 1.01 AU (Astronomical Units) from the Sun, a mere 1% further away! If the Earth were at 0.9 AU from the Sun, a Runaway Greenhouse Effect occurs 4 billion years ago, and in none of the simulations is it ever reversed! These results, which include runaway effects, provide only a very narrow (0.06 AU) CHZ (continuously habitable zone) for the Earth.

Note however, Issues with the Hart Model:

• The most recent studies of the composition of the earliest gases suggest that they may have been richer on CH4 and NH3 than in Hart’s models.
• CH4 and NH3 are rapidly destroyed by sunlight, leading to no CH4-dominated phase. In the long run, this seems to have dominated over the above issue. This diminishes the importance of the original Miller-Urey experiment in that the availability of CH4 is lower that the M-U experiment used.
• Plate tectonics helps to replenish the CO2 that is removed by the Urey reaction. It gets recycled. This effect was not included in the Hart models, and is critical for determining the long-term climate of the planet.

The Sun once had only 0.75 % of its current luminosity. A cooler Sun requires a larger Greenhouse Effect to keep the surface temperature at a suitable value. While some models allow for an increased Greenhouse Effect early on, this is a point of concern, especially if it runs counter to the analysis of gases trapped in ancient rocks. However, we know that T-Tauri stars have stellar winds. If they carry away enough mass into the main sequence phase, then the initial mass of the very early Sun was larger than today and so therefore was its luminosity. When Hart turned to the effect of our star on the CHZ, he found that had the Sun’s mass been less than about 83.5% of its current value, the CHZ would have completely vanished! In other words, planets circling stars slightly smaller in mass than the Sun will either freeze or boil in the surface (there’s no middle ground). And while stars larger than the Sun support larger CHZs, they also burn through their fuel faster and thus possess lifetimes shorter than the immense spans apparently needed for the evolution of life. From the sizeable relationship between a star’s mass and the CHZ it can be concluded that a star with a mass greater than about 1.2 solar masses will become a Red Giant too soon. The chemical basis for all life on Earth is the interaction between carbon atoms. The electrons in each atom are arranged so there’re four in the outer orbit. When two carbon atoms approach each other, they begin to share a pair of outer electrons (one for each atom). This sharing forms a bond that holds the atoms together. The remaining electrons belonging to the atoms in the chain can be shared with other basic elements. Carbon chains form the basis of all living matter on Earth, from the simplest amino acids to incredibly complex molecules such as DNA. The simplest carbon chains (the ones that form the basic building blocks for more complex organic molecules that make up proteins) are called amino acids. All told, there are more than 100 amino acids to be found in living systems on Earth, though just over 20 are required for adequate human nutrition.

For the Earth, I have estimated the following conditions apply for life to have been able to evolve to its current state:

• The Sun currently contains, by percentage mass: ~ 78.5% H, ~ 19.7% He, ~ 0.86% O, ~ 0.4 % C, ~ 0.14% Fe and ~ 0.54 % other elements.
• The Earth was, when it originally formed, ~ 0.9997 AU from the sun.
• The Sun’s radius must lie between ~ 92.287% & 109.435% of its current value for life to have evolved to its present state.
• The Effective temperature of the sun must lie between ~ 88.958% and 110.067% of its current value (~5778oK).
• Even if life (not dormant) had the ability to survive on Earth at temperatures between 100-200 oC, the range of the Earth’s CHZ would still only stretch from about 0.89 A.U. to 1.07 A.U. But, according to this, had the inner limit been 0.89 A.U. at any time in the past, the mass of the sun would be 126.246% of its current mass. If the Earth was 1.07 A.U. from the Sun, the mass of the sun would be 87.343% of what is now.
• Earth’s mass must lie between ~ 88.3% and 124.7% of its current value.
• Every second on Earth increases by ~ 3.540568e-13 s/s of the pervious one.
• The Moon’s distance from the Earth is increasing by ~ 1.204147e-9 m/yr.
• Currently, the radius of the Sun is shrinking by ~ 2.1167e-5 m/s. Given that the radius couldn’t have been more than ~ 109.435% of what it is today, 4.55 billion years ago, the rate of shrinkage at that time would’ve had to have been less than what it is now. This limit is based on the Sun’s luminosity.
• The rate a radial shrinkage of the Sun has decreased since the time of its formation 4.55 billion years.
• Life on Earth existed here for less than or equal to 3.21 billion years, based on a changing rate of radial shrinkage for the Sun.
• Rate of shrinkage of radius is proportional to the rate of loss of mass of the Sun and inversely proportional to the rate of increase in luminosity.
• The distance of the Earth from the Sun is increasing. The Luminosity of Sun the Sun is increasing. Therefore, amount of radiation reaching the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is increasing.
• Shrinking results from both an increase in density and the loss of mass through nuclear reactions.

[Important Note: The above estimates and ideas should be taken as theoretical only.]

Reference: http://www.physics.uc.edu/~sitko/Spring00/10-CHZs/chzs_planets.html

If you are going to develop any understanding of the earth's climatic system at all, you have to look into all this first(as well as the above).
To neglect this, is to neglect the main mechanisms!

A good complete introduction to the interesting and complex solar and weather and climate connections
I suggest:
google this:
richard mackey the climate dynamics of total solar variability
and then click on the third suggestion down...

[DOC] The climate dynamics of total solar variabilityFile Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View
The climate dynamics of total solar variability. Richardá Mackey Canberra ..... Solar variability and climate dynamics: overview of specific processes ...
www.coastalconference.com/2007/.../Richard%20Mackey.doc

He has put an amazing detailed summary of it all (One weather-climate error in the text, but rest is a great accurate and informative read)

Cheers

The Hart model was and is incredibly interesting, and has certainly inspired some intense discussion in the literature. One thing that makes some, including myself, feel insecure in the state of our knowledge of the conditions for a habitable earth described in detail by Hart is the speed and volume of new discoveries in astronomy that put some of the parameters in doubt. These include the probability of orbital disruption on a larger scale than previously estimated among the planets, in turn affected the amount of energy received from the sun. Perhaps this tells us that life was more persistent and versatile in its origination and adaptation (or evolution) than we allow for.

There is a proxy signal concerning our assumptions about the early solar system in instrumented and actual laboratory examination of traces of cometary material. Science has collectively believed that comets are primordial in nature and as old as the sun and planets, and thus contain preserved clues about the early solar system, notwithstanding some of them having orbital elements which are too fast to have been even remotely associated with this solar system, meaning they are interstellar in origin, and making a single visit to our solar system, like the Great Comet (Comet McNaught) of early 2007.

Now the view is rapidly coming into focus that apart from bright periodic comets, these supposedly old and unchanged comets have in fact been profoundly altered, just like the planets and moons, and do not come with ready insights into the early solar system other than that it was anything but an orderly or progressive set of events as described by Hart.

The more we know, the less we know, but it is nevertheless important to keep trying to discern the bigger picture, and those parts of it that may prove critical to the future of our species.

To neglect any valid and relevant scientific literature is the neglect any possible mechanism, period!

An interesting an extensive read nonetheless. I look forward to deciphering it!


I think it did more that…I think it established a foundation for future modelling.


Which parameters and magnitude or range of certainty are we talking about?


What do you mean by orbital disruption and how would this disruption affect the energy received by the Earth from the Sun?


May be it was, but that’s pure speculation without hard evidence!


Reference?


What is the evidence that a cometary orbit is not associated with the motions of the solar system?


Altered by what?


What do you mean by orderly and progressive…are you referring to entropy?


The more we know (from hard facts and evidence), the more know and the more we understand from the errors we make…that is logical!

-Cosmic-

Some of the questions you ask are rhetorical in nature in that I am sure you are mathematically literate and know that when an object enters the solar system at hyperbolic velocity it is thus from 'not around here' and certain to return to interstellar space.

Similarly I'm sure you are familiar with the problem that Mars appears to have been wet and warm when the Earth was gripped by intense cold. Same sun! The obvious conjecture is that the earth was in fact further from the sun than Mars at this time. It is only since the physical exploration of the planets began that we have actually observed orbital exchange occur between some of the very tiny moons of Saturn, and the retrograde orbital elements of the major Neptunian moon of Triton and the bizarre displacement of Nereid, and the perturbation of the Neptunian orbit itself, tell us there must have been a very substantial orbital upset in the solar system's past.

There is elaborate research underway to reconstruct the relative positions of our solar system and other stars and star clusters, driven by the realisation there is a high probability of close encounters between our system and others during the course of its evolution.

I could spend all day launching into a detailed discussion of astronomy on a weather forum but I won't because it will end up being you and me and of receding relevance to the actual topic.

Some of your queries just seem to me to be debating points, since you are clearly well read.

I do however agree with the overall view in modern science that to be seriously considered by the broader community papers need to be peer reviewed. If we adopt this noble standard on Weatherzone and everyone exchanges the four or five hundred words of references that your questions asks, I suspect the forum would disappear.

Let me dissect one of your questions, just one.

QUOTE What do you mean by orbital disruption and how would this disruption affect the energy received by the Earth from the Sun?UNQUOTE

With respect, you aren't that thick. Orbital disruption means a change in distance between between planets and the sun, and you are clearly sufficiently scientifically literate to understand that as the distance from a heat source increases or decreases so does the value per unit of surface area or volume of atmosphere of solar derived energy.

You already know 'how this would disrupt the energy received by the earth from the sun' don't you?

If you don't understand that I think the process of discussion with you is pointless.

…yes, I was a bit peed off at the time. It was wishful thinking I guess. My concerned (and not just in this thread) is that we’re talking about it, but not really gathering the appropriate resources, etc., etc…

Perhaps I should just post a list references like the ones in the paper sourced by BD...very interesting paper BTW!

Seasonality, Orbital Parameters and the Milankovitch Pacemaker

Combining eccentricity, obliquity and precession

Combining the effects of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession cycles enabled Milankovitch to calculate the changes in solar radiation received at a given latitude through time back to 600,000 years ago. He found that the maximum change was equivalent to reducing the amount of summer radiation received today and 65 degrees to that received now over 550 km to the north at 77 degrees.

• What might such change in insolation have done to the latitude of glacial limits around the North Atlantic?
• Answer: It must have significantly reduced their latitude.

In fact, if there was a simple southward shift of ~600 km, this would bring the latitude of the glacial limits seen in mid Norway today at 65 degrees north (where glacier still exist) down to the latitude of Scotland. Of course, changing insolation may not have shifted the glacial limits in such a simplistic way, for they are controlled not only by latitude, but by climate, and in particular to direction of winds bringing weather systems that result in snowfall. But this simple ‘thought experiment’ shows how significant insolation changes caused by astronomical effects might be in changing the climate so that glaciers expand in the Northern Hemisphere.

Orbital and Climate Cycle – Figure 14.23

Curves comparing changes in carbon dioxide and methane with temperature changes based on oxygen-isotope values in samples from deep ice core drilled at Vostok Station, Antarctica. Concentrations of greenhouse gases were high during the early part of the last interglaciation, just as they are during the present interglaciation, but they were lower during glacial times. The curves are consistent with the hypothesis that the atmospheric concentration of these gases contributed to warm interglacial climates and cool glacial climates.

[Transcribed extract – Box 3.4]
Bold Added.

Interesting stuff.

Re: Australia's Extreme Weather Part Of Climate Change?

It's agreed then! Atmospheric CO2 measures didn't cross 300 ppm until 1913 in this interglacial. No massive conspiracy. Just a massive body of data that says so.

Whilst this is something that is difficult to argue against and I normally pull my head in and keep quiet, I would suggest that the ice-core records for CO2 may very well be contaminated by a similar issue that plagues tree rings... in that they lose "resolution" and become "low pass CO2 filters" (see this musing by William Briggs linky)

Why?

Because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria as the air trapped within the snow (before it turns to ice) can have interchange with air from latter years, and then the air is forced out as the snow turns to ice under pressure… (See the Siple issue where the determined CO2 from the core was moved forward by 90 years to “adjust” for the fact that the measured CO2 content in ice from 1891 was 328PPM linky). There of course are other issues such as possibly those where under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates which then are explosively released during the decompression when bringing up the drill core from depth.

Supporting this is the odd journal article that attempts to determine CO2 from plant stomatal remains, such as this:


From: “Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration” Science 18 June 1999 linky

So what you say is by no means written in stone Ben…