Climate Modeling using a Leaky Integrator

[Chris Knight]

Another question:

The leaky integrator graph shows a sharp rise shortly after 1950, while the Hadley record shows a steady rise over the last 30 years, this results in a large area of differential between around 1950 and 1975.

Any ideas as to the reasons for this? I note with interest that the problem is largely nullified by tampering with the "leak" in the leaky integrator.

1957 had a whopper of a sunspot maximum. VP's sunspot data confirm this in the following chart. In an earlier post here I suggested that TSI data available on Leif Svalgaard's site might be used as a more precise and appropriate input than the sunspot numbers:

The data are here:tsi.txt

This is following the trusted formula: if the data do not fit the model results, change the data

edited for grammar.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Chris Knight

[VillagePlank]

I'm surprised that no one has asked me to put GHGs in, yet :huh: Do we need them?

Just kidding .... the output, o, is half the multipler of the input, i, so, that, in and of itself, models the greenhouse effect. I hope you'll excuse the use of 'greenhouse' Interesting that I've been able to keep this as a constant .... Anyway, we all know our planet behaves nothing like a greenhouse .... perhaps gaseous radiativity effect :o

Will try the the Leif data, and will get onto the ENSO stuff if someone posts a link to the data.

Edited April 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

Here's the graph from the Leif data .... this time, nothing has been changed apart from the data ...

This is the first chart that supports the AGW hypothesis. There is a clear picture that since 1960 'something else' apart from insolation caused warming.

However, that said, why is it that sunspots do so well, and insolation doesn't? Is there something else about sunspots that causes warming climate apart from the rather obvious "more sunspots mean more energy" ?

I'm inclined to stick with sunspots - does anyone disagree?

Edited April 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Here's the graph from the Leif data .... this time, nothing has been changed apart from the data ...

This is the first chart that supports the AGW hypothesis. There is a clear picture that since 1960 'something else' apart from insolation caused warming.

However, that said, why is it that sunspots do so well, and insolation doesn't? Is there something else about sunspots that causes warming climate apart from the rather obvious "more sunspots mean more energy" ?

I'm inclined to stick with sunspots - does anyone disagree?

I think Ozone has been shown to have an effect which varies with Solar output; cannot remember the details, perhaps PM High Pressure, he's the Ozone guru around these parts.

[VillagePlank]

1957 had a whopper of a sunspot maximum.

I wonder if sunspots have a logarithmic, or exponential effect. That is, rather like the Ricter (sp?) scale - the higher number means orders of magnitude more than lower numbers?

[jethro]

Perhaps Solar wind may be a better measurement than sunspots? It's currently the lowest it's been for 50 years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90409142301.htm

[Chris Knight]

Here's the graph from the Leif data .... this time, nothing has been changed apart from the data ...

This is the first chart that supports the AGW hypothesis. There is a clear picture that since 1960 'something else' apart from insolation caused warming.

However, that said, why is it that sunspots do so well, and insolation doesn't? Is there something else about sunspots that causes warming climate apart from the rather obvious "more sunspots mean more energy" ?

I'm inclined to stick with sunspots - does anyone disagree?

You could try putting a lag of about sixty years between the Leif chart and the temperature That would even predict the current temperature stagnation!

I would hate to be called closed-minded, VP. Why don't you add Mauna Loa CO2 to this? At least we know the IPCC estimate of the temperature of a doubling in CO2, and we can then extrapolate back in time to preindustrial periods, without using ice core data.

ENSO data is made up of SST anomalies, and is therefore a part of the HADCRUT3 temperature series, you'd be putting a temperature signal into the model, which is a rather circular reference IMO.

[VillagePlank]

I would hate to be called closed-minded, VP. Why don't you add Mauna Loa CO2 to this? At least we know the IPCC estimate of the temperature of a doubling in CO2, and we can then extrapolate back in time to preindustrial periods, without using ice core data.

Well, sunspots do the job without the need for CO2 (or anything else) The only reason I'd need to put CO2 in is if I used insolation, which, I'm sure would show up the rise in modern times.

But why use two variables when one will suffice? Occam's Razor et al

Edited April 20, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Chris Knight]

I thought I had found a good long recent historical ENSO record here, but sadly it seems flawed. Looking through the data, the 1997-8 El Nino doesn't seem to exist, as either a very strong or extreme event, and some of the dates seem to be wrong compared to the ENSO-ONI data from NOAA.

Who peer reviews this stuff?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some graphs from NOAA:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/enso/ENSOTrend.htm

and UEA's Climatic Research Unit:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/enso/soi_map_and_plot.gif

Re. peer review- peer review does help filter out a lot of the junk, but some of it still gets through unfortunately.

[Chris Knight]

Some graphs from NOAA:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/enso/ENSOTrend.htm

and UEA's Climatic Research Unit:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/enso/soi_map_and_plot.gif

Re. peer review- peer review does help filter out a lot of the junk, but some of it still gets through unfortunately.

Thanks TWS. Is the SOI numerical data from the second link available online anywhere?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Continuation from the General thread...

Format's a bit naff for sticking in a spreadsheet - I'd have to type the lot in which means data transcription errors. if there's a downloadable text file format that goes back further (say to beginning of 19th century) that might be handier ....

Here's a page with a link to ENSO data going back to 1800. It's very patchy at first, but it's much more complete by the time you get to 1850.

http://jisao.washington.edu/data/globalsstenso/

Of course our LI graphs are all using annual averages, and ENSO data is monthly. Does averaging the monthly ENSO figures over a year distort the data too much to be useful (since ENSO events frequently cross over between years)? Or can the monthly data be incorporated into the pre-existing LI graphs?

Any ideas?

CB

[Thundery wintry showers]

Thanks TWS. Is the SOI numerical data from the second link available online anywhere?

Yes, here:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/soi.htm

[VillagePlank]

Interesting stuff ...

Adding ENSO (and fiddle mucking around with constants, multipliers etc etc) gives us this chart :

Which means the only manual correction of the leak (you'll recall I had to do 20 years worth of reducing the size of the leak, and then increasing it to account for the 1945 lump) I can now produce the following graph by increasing the leak between 1954 and 1951 fourfold ...

What would make the atmosphere lose so much energy in a six year period?

** EDIT **

I've upped the leak for the early 1960's. Perhaps it was a cold winter, or something ....

(Has anyone got any global snow cover figures?)

Edited April 21, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Chris Knight]

Interesting stuff ...

Adding ENSO (and fiddle mucking around with constants, multipliers etc etc) gives us this chart :

Which means the only manual correction of the leak (you'll recall I had to do 20 years worth of reducing the size of the leak, and then increasing it to account for the 1945 lump) I can now produce the following graph by increasing the leak between 1954 and 1951 fourfold ...

What would make the atmosphere lose so much energy in a six year period?

** EDIT **

I've upped the leak for the early 1960's. Perhaps it was a cold winter, or something ....

Lot of atmospheric thermonuclear & enhanced fission nuclear tests during that period - lots of radioactivity in the atmosphere until the test ban treaty, following the Cuban Missile Crisis, both in the tropical pacific and in the Arctic. Radioactivity - ionisation - cloud nucleation events - increased albedo - reduction of surface insolation - not so much a loss as a reduction in input. However, there is no global cloud data for that period (that any government has yet released). They did call it the Cold War!

Thankx to TWS for the SOI source :lol:

Edited April 21, 2009 by Chris Knight

[VillagePlank]

Here's the data .... (so you can see what constants and multipliers I've used) ...

Lot of atmospheric thermonuclear (snip) ...

Natural factors first!

Edited April 21, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

This is a very clever enterprise of yours VP :lol:

I'm a bit blinded by some of the technicalities but it is a close as one can get to a real internet study

[Admiral_Bobski]

Between 1945 and 1950 there was a high sea ice extent (you might say unusually high), especially in the springs and summers of those years...perhaps an albedo effect had something to do with it?

:lol:

CB

[VillagePlank]

Between 1945 and 1950 there was a high sea ice extent ...

I don't suppose you havea link to a text file with conveniently organised numbers in it do you?

[Admiral_Bobski]

I don't suppose you havea link to a text file with conveniently organised numbers in it do you?

I'll see what I can find - I've gotta dash out and pick my youngest from nursery in a few minutes, but I'll get back to you asap!

:lol:

CB

Is this any good?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

CB

[VillagePlank]

Is this any good?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008

Great format - what do the numbers mean?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Great format - what do the numbers mean?

That's a very good question...

hmmm...

maybe I should have checked that first!!

Again, I'll get back to you...

:lol:

CB

[VillagePlank]

Great format - what do the numbers mean?

Sorry - me being a bit dim - presume the columns are the seasonal sea ice extent? What are the units of measure?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry - me being a bit dim - presume the columns are the seasonal sea ice extent? What are the units of measure?

I think the first column is average annual sea ice extent, columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 are Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter sea ice extent (not necessarily in that order!) and they're in millions of km²

:lol:

CB

[VillagePlank]

I've averaged all the columns, and then computed the difference from the mean over the whole set and applied it to the model with a multiple. Here's the chart.

I am now down to the 5 years following 1945 of 'hand-coded' values to produce this chart.

Edited April 21, 2009 by VillagePlank