tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post7937887797018812282..comments2022-09-24T23:35:44.074+10:00Comments on moyhu: Temperature averaging and integration - the basicsNick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-49916305767741228332017-08-21T10:01:21.477+10:002017-08-21T10:01:21.477+10:00Thanks, Clive,
Triangular mesh is still my preferr...Thanks, Clive,<br />Triangular mesh is still my preferred option too. I'd like to find something that is different but nearly as good, for comparison. <br /><br />I've been doing more with icosahedral grids, and I'll write about it soon. It's along the lines of the cubed sphere <a href="https://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/cubing-sphere.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. It's the same idea that I can make a package of the nodes and their relations for various subdivisions, suitable for routine use - then you don't really need to worry about the geometry any more. But the cubed sphere is pretty good too, and I spent some time getting an equal area version, eg <a href="https://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/temperature-station-distribution-equal.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-75799141963238326162017-08-21T05:42:26.318+10:002017-08-21T05:42:26.318+10:00And then consider QBO, which is subject to the sam...And then consider QBO, which is subject to the same Laplace's tidal equations. When Richard Lindzen first tried to understand QBO, he went down a rabbit-hole of complexity in regards to the equations. In fact, there is a way to solve the LTE analytically by making a few assumptions based on the symmetry of the equator (along which the QBO arises).<br /><br />Once that is out of the way, if we input the cyclic lunar nodal tidal forces precisely, then the characteristic QBO cycle with all its fine detail is reproduced accurately. Its actually very automatic.<br /><br />In contrast, if you look at the research literature, it's known that GCMs will not reproduce the QBO behavior out of the box. On occasion one will find a paper that claims to match QBO behavior by tuning a GCM model. But these rely on a natural atmospheric resonance that occurs only if specific parameters are set. Again, they have no lunar tuning available because those parameters are not even in the code base.<br /><br />NASA JPL has internal research proposals that anyone can look at which suggest that much more climate behavior is forced by the moon than anyone in "consensus" circles is willing to consider. <br /><br />Browning and company are a lot like Lindzen in that they are barking up the wrong tree. It's really not about being unable to solve complex numerical equations, but of getting the geophysics right and finding the simplest formulation whereby the observed behavior emerges.<br /><br />So its basically all talk and no walk on their part.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-88470852097166463392017-08-20T06:43:49.393+10:002017-08-20T06:43:49.393+10:00Nick.
Nice summary!
I am convinced that you can...Nick. <br /><br />Nice summary!<br /><br />I am convinced that you can't really do better than a triangular mesh of the actual measured temperatures. Least squares fitting always means assuming some underlying continuous function of temperature. <br /><br />Grid averaging over a fixed time interval is better suited to study regional scale spatial resolution. However, here again Icosahedral grids rather than (lat,lon) grids are best, because they avoid unequal area biases.<br /><br />PS. If there is a TOA energy imbalance, then Teff <b>must</b> reduce.<br /><br />Clive Besthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10486120708699060846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-36709275980664386042017-08-20T04:48:40.596+10:002017-08-20T04:48:40.596+10:00Laplace's tidal equations are at the root of a...Laplace's tidal equations are at the root of all computational climate models. The derivation hierarchy is like this: Navier-Stokes -> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_equations" rel="nofollow">Primitive equations</a> -> Laplace's tidal equation. This is from most general to a linearization.<br /><br />What people don't appreciate is that the tidal equations aren't actually used for analyzing tides. No redesign of GCMs is necessary.<br /><br />So this analysis is completely orthogonal to the application of GCMs. Indeed, if the GCM's were parameterized to predict tides, it would be overkill. Tides are a geophysical phenomenon separate from the details of circulation models. Therefore, tidal sea-level height anomalies don't come out of the GCM output. And it would be surprising if it did, because the lunar parameterization is nowhere to be seen in the input.<br /><br />What I am doing with the ENSO model is similar to this. ENSO is not a circulation, it is a geophysical tidal effect that is at a different scale than what GCM's are looking at. <br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-33103368699044014302017-08-20T03:16:10.226+10:002017-08-20T03:16:10.226+10:00WHUT - applying percentages to absolute temperatur...WHUT - applying percentages to absolute temperature makes absolutely zero sense unless one is using Kelvin. Even after Nick pointed this out they stuck to their guns. Kelvin temperatures are directly proportional to the molecular energy; 100 K has half as much motion-energy per molecule as 200 K. <br /><br />Using other scales you have nonsense like this:<br /><br />__ Kelvin Celcius Fahren Delisle<br />t1 287.65 = 14.5 = 58.1 = -78.25<br />t2 288.65 = 15.5 = 59.9 = -76.75 <br /><br />Pct change<br />__ 0.347% _ 6.89% _ 3.098% _ -1.917%<br /><br /><br />Also the inability to see that uncertainties for anomalies are less than the uncertainties for absolutes. These are concepts that 14 or 15 year olds should be able to quickly understand. <br /><br />Re: ENSO - Have you established that current GCM designs allow for the lunar/tidal influences that appear to determine ENSO can be properly incorporated? If not, you're expecting the impossible from current designs and what you really want is a complete redesign to allow this to be. Yes, we all want a pony. It's not an excuse to give Jankowski and Browning a free pass.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-42120113650831116532017-08-20T00:40:04.748+10:002017-08-20T00:40:04.748+10:00Of course climate models should be able to predict...Of course climate models should be able to predict the 1998 El Nino high. From my response to Browning above, the key is to consider that natural variability is a transfer function mapping the forcing inputs to the geophysical response. These are considered temporal boundary conditions, not initial conditions.<br /><br />Consider these two well-known mechanisms:<br /><br />1. Everyone understands that the seasonal cycle is a deterministic response from solar input to the output. That gives the intuitive hot/cold cycle we all can intuit.<br /><br />2. Same thing with tidal response, which is a deterministic response from lunisolar input to the output. No one has any doubts over that forcing mechanism either.<br /><br />So you can see that these aren't initial conditions, but temporal boundary conditions that guide the solution to maintain a consistent phase with the forcing.<br /><br />But what no one has ever done is to map the combined seasonal and lunisolar inputs as input to the geophysical ocean. All the fundamental equations are discussed in the ENSO literature, such as the delayed differential and Mathieu equations -- ready to be tested.<br /><br />If you do that -- forcing the equations with the calibrated lunar and solar modulation, any reasonably long ENSO interval can be used to predict any other interval. <br /><br />The issue with people like Browning perhaps is that they are mathematicians first and only applied physicists second. They never tried the obvious mechanism to start with and so went down a rabbit-hole of increasing complexity, with their frustration of not being able to model anything boiling over into a contrarian rage that we see on social media.<br /><br />Same thing with Richard Lindzen and his inability to model QBO. He never understood the physical mechanism behind QBO and so created his own mathematical world of complexity. I believe his lashing out at climate science is a defense mechanism or projection of his own inability to do the science correctly.<br /><br />In contrast, most mainstream scientists are not filled with the rage that Browning and Lindzen can barely contain. They are willing to let scientific progress play out without interference.<br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-57617230236071557482017-08-19T20:08:18.205+10:002017-08-19T20:08:18.205+10:00WHUT
"Browning obviously knows some physics o...WHUT<br /><i>"Browning obviously knows some physics or math, or did at one time."</i><br />Yes, but he gets an awful lot of elementary stuff wrong. Even in your quote:<br /><i>"All missed the 1998 El Nino high."</i><br />Climate models are never expected to predict that. Models do do ENSO, which is rather a miracle, but they don't come with any phase relation to Earth history. That would be true even if they were initialized to recent data, which they aren't.<br /> <br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-28560917401732916042017-08-19T12:34:39.770+10:002017-08-19T12:34:39.770+10:00Browning obviously knows some physics or math, or ...Browning obviously knows some physics or math, or did at one time. <br />He made this statement:<br /><br /><i>"Ken,<br /><br />I have given a simple mathematical proof on this site that using forcing on a set of time dependent partial differential equations one can obtain any solution one desires. Christy has stated that he looked at 102 models and none agreed well with the obs. All missed the 1998 El Nino high. Now the modelers are going to adjust (tune or change the forcing) of the models to better agree with the obs. If you know the answer, it is not a problem to reproduce the result. <br /><br />Jerry"</i><br /><br />This is true to various degrees, as a transfer function is a differential equation, and one can pass an input that can match any output you want. In many cases, it has nothing to do with the differential equation selected.<br /><br />Consider ocean tides, which obey Laplace's tidal equations, which are a set of differential equations. It turns out those act as a rather benign transfer function, and the output is best approximated by a set of sinusoidal functions corresponding to the known lunisolar diurnal and semidiurnal cycles. For a tidal analysis, the solution is matched to the output and that is a generally accepted approach.<br /><br />So there are a huge range of differential equations that someone can apply to a problem, but if the output approximately matches the input, that's the case that Browning is talking about. But I am not sure if he understands that.<br /><br />Browning can't accept that this works for the spatial integration that Nick is working out.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-8930512454583505642017-08-19T10:10:02.091+10:002017-08-19T10:10:02.091+10:00Nick -- I read through the comments ('discuss...Nick -- I read through the comments ('discussion') at Climate Audit. Your patience with the pseudoskeptic crowd is already legendary; this only adds to it. Jankowski and Browning in particular would have received nothing but a standard reply from me --- "Hey dipsh*t, get back to me after you buy a clue."<br /><br />Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.com