"nearly everything we have any confidence in when it comes to climate change is related to global patterns of surface temperature, which are primarily controlled by thermodynamics. In contrast, we have much less confidence in atmospheric circulation aspects of climate change, which are primarily controlled by dynamics and exert a strong control on regional climate. Model projections of circulation-related fields, including precipitation, show a wide range of possible outcomes [of different signs and amplitudes], even on centennial timescales. Sources of uncertainty include low-frequency chaotic variability and the sensitivity to model error of the circulation response to climate forcing."...a damning critique of IPCC climate models and projections, which basically admits the models cannot be used to predict regional climate change with any confidence. It also implies that the models cannot be used to predict extreme weather or precipitation.
Further, the "nearly everything we have any confidence in when it comes to climate change is related to global patterns of surface temperature, which are primarily controlled by thermodynamics" is also incorrect to claim that there should be confidence in model thermodynamics, because the models are not based on the "basic physics" of thermodynamics, and consist almost entirely of parameterizations/fudge factors which are unable to properly simulate the fundamental thermodynamic aspects of convection, chaotic turbulence, clouds, solar amplification mechanisms, etc which greatly affect surface temperature.
In addition, a vote of no confidence on model thermodynamics is warranted due to violating the second law of thermodynamics with respect to simulating conventional turbulent heat flow, one of the most important mechanisms of heat transfer in the atmosphere.
Atmospheric circulation as a source of uncertainty in climate change projections
Theodore G. Shepherd
Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2253 Received 20 May 2014 Accepted 20 August 2014 Published online 21 September 2014
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change continues to strengthen* [wishful thinking], and concerns about severe weather events are increasing [no evidence]. As a result, scientific interest is rapidly shifting from detection and attribution of global climate change to prediction of its impacts at the regional scale. However, nearly everything we have any confidence in when it comes to climate change is related to global patterns of surface temperature, which are primarily controlled by thermodynamics. In contrast, we have much less confidence in atmospheric circulation aspects of climate change, which are primarily controlled by dynamics and exert a strong control on regional climate. Model projections of circulation-related fields, including precipitation, show a wide range of possible outcomes, even on centennial timescales. Sources of uncertainty include low-frequency chaotic variability and the sensitivity to model error of the circulation response to climate forcing. As the circulation response to external forcing appears to project strongly onto existing patterns of variability, knowledge of errors in the dynamics of variability may provide some constraints on model projections. Nevertheless, higher scientific confidence in circulation-related aspects of climate change will be difficult to obtain. For effective decision-making, it is necessary to move to a more explicitly probabilistic, risk-based approach.
 |
| *The scientific proof that "evidence for anthropogenic climate change continues to strengthen" |
 |
| Regional climate model projections |
AGW slows wind speeds: http://t.co/aQaRI0WsCH
AGW increases wind speeds: http://t.co/cqsoJ6dddh
The infallible, unfalsifiable AGW religion
— hockey schtick (@hockeyschtick1) September 22, 2014
Models seem far away of any sufficient data about oceans water and heat supply to the atmosphere. By far the most sun ray influence the global air temperature via the oceans. By far the most water vapor in the atmosphere is supplied by the oceans in a rhythm of less than two weeks. Each water drop is in the air merely for about 10 days, see here: http://www.ocean-climate-law.com/13/Arch/6_9.html
ReplyDeleteMS (Have that correct or does that apply to a different blogger?) you are correct that so-called climate scientists and their fellow travelers do not understand basic thermodynamics (which by the way is an engineering subject not physics). For a start the S-B equation (sometimes thought as a law -radiant energy flux proportional to T^4) strictly only applies to surfaces in a vacuum. As Baron Fourier (who was an engineer and the first to formulate theory on heat transfer) stated when there is an atmosphere over a body everything changes. There is convection, and if the surface is a liquid or partly covered by a liquid there will be phase change and mass transfer (ie evaporation). radiation is only a fraction of the heat transfer from the earth surface because of the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteThen as you say there is a need to consider the 4th postulate of Thermodynamics (otherwise known as the second law of Thermodynamics) which now has been found not only to apply on a gross scale but even on the sub-atomic particle scale.
There is no heat flux from a cold gas in the atmosphere to a warmer earth surface.
Hi cementafriend,
DeleteI agree with you. Warmists think just because there is bidirectional radiation between a warmer and colder body that means there is bidirectional heat flux too. Incorrect. For there to be heat flux from colder to warmer would require an impossible decrease in entropy.