Climate Models

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
4,267
557
One of the factors that can produce a winning F1 car is the understanding of turbulent flow, the people that design these cars spend millions on wind tunnels, simply because turbulent flow has not yielded to mathematics, my way of thinking is ,that it is essential to understand turbulent flow before any one can predict the out come of any new input to any thing as dynamic as the Earths weather.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,234
210
On what do you base your opinion?
 
  • #3
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,929
2,246
simply because turbulent flow has not yielded to mathematics
It certainly has. The field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has exploded in the last couple of decades, and simulation of turbulent flow of liquids and gases is certainly a major application. Every automobile designer uses CFD in their design process. It's also used in engine design and performance analysis.

We have much better computers and software these days, and improvements in understanding of fluid dynamics and energy transport are continuous.

Certainly the earth's climate is extremely complex and better models are needed to capture local effects.


With respect to turbulence, one should keep in mind that the Reynolds number of atmospheric flows is quite low compared to turbulence produced by high speed systems like aircraft, turbomachinery or forced convection systems. Also, the dimensional scales are much, much greater in the atmosphere than man-made systems.

But Wooly is correct in asserting that we need much better models, which only comes from better understanding of the physics of the atmosphere - both short term and long.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,234
210
It certainly has. The field of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has exploded in the last couple of decades, and simulation of turbulent flow of liquids and gases is certainly a major application. Every automobile designer uses CFD in their design process. It's also used in engine design and performance analysis.

We have much better computers and software these days, and improvements in understanding of fluid dynamics and energy transport are continuous.

Certainly the earth's climate is extremely complex and better models are needed to capture local effects.
To what extent can we calculate the margin of error for such models?

To what limit must we understand local effects in order to make global projections? I don't know if the analogy works, but one that comes to mind is that I don't need to predict the precise path of a Pachinko ball to know that it will end up at the bottom of the machine.
 
  • #5
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,929
2,246
To what extent can we calculate the margin of error for such models?
I don't know. Error bars that I've seen on graphs seem much larger than the magnitude of change in temperature, i.e. is could be 1°C +/- 5°C, or the uncertainty could be greater.

Last year, climate experts were predicting a very active hurricane season in the Atlantic. Well, we had a fairly quiet season, and many hurricanes turned north to northeast and did not reach the US. Clearly something was missing in the models.

To what limit must we understand local effects in order to make global projections? I don't know if the analogy works, but one that comes to mind is that I don't need to predict the precise path of a Pachinko ball to know that it will end up at the bottom of the machine.
I think the models need to include sources and sinks of thermal energy and atmospheric composition, and that is certainly easier said than done.

During the month of June, we had relatively cool evenings and nights, but the days were apparently warmer than normal, July seems to be hotter.

We've had periods of drought punctuated by heavy rains (thunderstorms), and we've had periods of record precipitiation and flooding.

Evo has mentioned the cold weather lingering in the central part of the country, and now parts of the US midwest, SW and SE are having drought conditions.

http://drought.unl.edu/dm/archive/20070710/pics/conus_dm_070710.jpg [Broken]
from http://drought.unl.edu/dm/archive.html [Broken] (images change weekly)

Dandelions, Poison Ivy Grow With Global Warming
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11903786
by John Nielsen
Morning Edition, July 12, 2007 · A pair of new studies shows dandelions and poison ivy are expected to thrive as carbon dioxide, the main gas responsible for climate change, builds up in the atmosphere.
We have seen an increase in poison ivy in our region, and that also seems to be coupled with increased stress on various deciduous and coniferous trees.


NPR's Global Warming Page - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5394326

Florida Joins Climate Change Campaign
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11945348
by Greg Allen
Morning Edition, July 13, 2007 · Florida Gov. Charlie Crist plans to order targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making his the first state in the South to get serious about global warming. Florida will also adopt car-pollution standards similar to California's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,234
210
I don't know. Error bars that I've seen on graphs seem much larger than the magnitude of change in temperature, i.e. is could be 1°C +/- 5°C, or the uncertainty could be greater.

Last year, climate experts were predicting a very active hurricane season in the Atlantic. Well, we had a fairly quiet season, and many hurricanes turned north to northeast and did not reach the US. Clearly something was missing in the models.
I don't think any climate scientist claims that any GW model predicts yearly variations. Again and again what I hear is that any particular year or event might be indicative of the effects of GW, but there is no way to know. Only the long term trends can be evaluated with any confidence. Of course, I can't help but wonder if given a bit less energy and moisture content in Katrina, would New Orleans have escaped the wrath of the storm and still be a thriving city? Might we have already lost a city to GW? Could be, but no way to know.

I think the models need to include sources and sinks of thermal energy and atmospheric composition, and that is certainly easier said than done.
Yes, it is very complex and certainly in the exclusive domain of the experts.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
765
15
One of the factors that can produce a winning F1 car is the understanding of turbulent flow, the people that design these cars spend millions on wind tunnels, simply because turbulent flow has not yielded to mathematics, my way of thinking is ,that it is essential to understand turbulent flow before any one can predict the out come of any new input to any thing as dynamic as the Earths weather.
I have also heard this. A 'climate model' is a solution to a bunch of equations, one of which being the Navier-Stokes. The term u.gradu in this equation is not fully understood, this is the term that encompasses turbulence. If we understood turbulence we would better understand this term, hence we would better understand one of the equations which comprise a climate model, and hence we would have better climate models.
 
  • #8
Skyhunter
General Circulation Models have improved significantly, but they are far from being able to predict yearly climate changes. But like Ivan's Pachinko ball, we know that as the earth continues to absorb more energy than it emits, which is and has been the case since the 70's, that the average temperature will increase over time.

GCMs are attempting to predict how climate will react to the added energy, but as is evident from the "predictions" we hear about in the news, there is still far to much uncertainty. Even though it was primitive by today's standards, Hansen's climate model was surprisingly accurate in predicting the cooling from Pinatubo, as well as how much temperatures would rise in 20 years.

I always find it astonishing, that the processes scientists are most confident of, ie CO2 and other GHGs, are the issues that the skeptics attack as "unfounded." If I were going to dispute the IPCC 4AR, I would point out that the margin for error with aerosols could put the radiative budget in the negative.
 

Related Threads on Climate Models

Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
Top