Really are temperatures stopping its rise?
This question has focused since the publication of new estimates at the end of 2012 where temperatures don’t grow as much as the same estimation in 2011, and even that seems low (look below illustrations). Obviously it has opened a debate on the issue where skeptics have used to re-evaluate their positions. Not long ago left the Climategate again, the scandal of emails on the data manipulated on the progress of climate change where Bob Ward demanded an explanation to clean meteorologists honor, and recently James Delingpole talked about the “climate Change obsession” in "the crazy climate change obsession that's made the Met Office a menace", where he attacks the British meteorological service. We don’t need to remember what happened in Doha as the null willingness by companies and governments in relation to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. All this is in a new offense deniers helped with data provided by the same pro-change that reinforce their position. At last skeptics will ensure that climate change does not exist and we were watching was just normal fluctuations in climate. But can deniers sing victory?
Assume that the new estimate is good, in this case would be even higher temperatures than any other temporary register, and this isn’t a sign of normality. Just remember last year we have gone to realize that it was not quite ordinary, and we only need to see what the latest weather news (wildfires in Australia, lower temperatures in the Nort India of the last 170 years) to make sure it's going along the same path. The 2012 has been an exceptional year, statistically speaking it is normal that there are exceptional years out of the deviation, but starts to be normal in recent years. On the other hand the extraordinary phenomena are becoming more extreme and especially repetitive. Most troubling is the increased occurrence of heavy phenomena, maybe not as spectacular as the extremes but they do much more damage to be more. But the great frequency of this heavy phenomenon demonstrates the increase in energy stored in the earth. In my post “The drop that makes a glass overflows” talking about point of no return and we don’t having models on how the weather work outside current conditions. And this is the question; we have never been so high temperatures in ongoing systematic record period, therefore temperatures have stopped to grow it doesn’t mean that weather is backing to normal, simply we haven’t any idea.
One of the reasons this statement is an alleged stagnation of the average temperature of the planet that was recorded last year. To start when I look graphs planetary mean temperature of the last 200 years, I always look to perspective. What does it mean planetary mean temperature of the year 1850? Or Can I compare the mean temperature of 1850 with mean temperatures of 2012? Yes I can do but we must be accurately. In XIX century there was few meteorological observatories, most in cities, and concentrates in zones of Europe and Nord American; while at present we have an extensive network of observatories around the world plus satellites sweep around the globe including the oceans. What I would say is that the value is not in the specific information or inter-annual variation, if we want to evaluate these data we must check the trend of the data at large time scales.
A second item is to evaluate which really shows the planetary mean temperature. Of course it is significant but the problem is of What. In part temperature the measurement of the energy stored in the air, but the amount of energy depends on the heat capacity of the air. This is formed mostly by N2 and O2 molecules and we can be approaching an ideal gas so the molar heat capacity is 7/2R (gas constant: R=0.082 L·Atm/K·mol) because they are a diatomic gases, but not only are these two gases are also water in a 4% of concentration, that have a heat capacity of 9/7R (in ideal approximation of triatomic no lineal molecule) and other gases in residual form. Water concentrations are depending of temperature, orography and other factors exposed in feedback. So there isn’t a direct correlation between temperature and energy stored in the air, because his mount with more factors. Other hand air has little part of energy in relation to oceans which containing 85% of it while the atmosphere contains only 4% of the energy stored in the climate system (the last 11% is stored by continents). We know superficial temperature of oceans, but its deep and middle temperature we only have some occasional measurements, and of course we haven’t the slightest idea how is the temporal evolution of its temperatures that we only have estimates.
A third thing to consider is how it is calculated. This can be calculated as the geometric mean, but this practice hides thermic amplitudes, in an observatory can have two degrees between maxima and minimum and also the difference can be of ten degrees but both would registered the same central value. If mean geometric can lose information, when we make averages these can do of more forms; we can make the main temperature of some hour, maxima, minima, local, annual…And not all observatories have the same geographic conditionings, there are in mountains, cities, deserts… This requires at meteorologist to add criterion with calculation. In short, there are many ways to calculate the average temperature and many criteria to impose, and sometimes criteria change in time.
And last but not less important is thinking that the temperatures show the stored energy in the climate system, but not the total real energy. Let me explain the Stratosphere is the air that we have above the Troposphere that is where weather phenomena occur (where we live). Stratosphere has temperature and capacity heat therefore contains energy, but there it isn’t happening anything, however the Troposphere has weather. Meteorological phenomena absorb energy of the system, and thus lower the temperature. It may seem strange, but such wind is mechanical energy that gives part of it in the mills and wind must absorb this energy of the air or on the sea surface. Current year we had extreme events that have required a lot of energy to occur, but more importantly, it has been considerable melting of ice. If we remember of primary school, teachers learned us that ice meld in one temperature, and if we add energy temperature not increase if rest ice to melt. Part of the energy captured by greenhouse gases has become melted water and it hasn’t affected temperatures.
In short the temperature is a good indicator but that guides weather is the energy stored in the climate system.
Another thing is the mathematical climatic simulation and here there is the question. The problem of these simulations, apart if the assumptions used to make the simulation are correct, is that they are systems of nonlinear differential equations. This type of system has the particularity that they are very sensitive to initial conditions, in other words small differences in the initial values can become completely opposite results when you let time pass. These small differences are so small that they are inferior to measurement errors. This peculiarity was discovered Edward Lorenz the father of Chaos precisely when studying climate systems.
So when we have extrapolated the climatic evolution, it can evolve in a completely unpredictable. In fact when are make these forecasts they should be used statistical systems to give the most likely result. When you make a temporal evolution of such system you don’t do once but you calculate several, because every time you do an evolution that differs from the previous one. To solve it we need cover sufficient values within the margin of error of measurement, and make the mean more deviation of it, which is usually displayed in a weather prevision: expected value (eg rain) and deviation (unlikely, sure ...). How many steps should we do? Well it depends on the scope of the provision, when it is farther back in time we will have more times we do the calculus. Obviously the more far in time is our prevision more iterations and longer machine computation we need. And therefore we are making the long-term forecasts with models that require less iteration and more simplified with the corresponding loss of information and precision.
But for much precision that we put, we haven’t the assurance that our mathematical models are correct. Yes modern meteorology has a great degree of precision. But we think that a model is a simplification, these are mathematical models and not necessarily correspond exactly to the physical, and parameterization of these was done in the present conditions. In this sense, the models don’t need to behave as expected when the energy is much higher than the period in it was parameterized. For example it could be that the forecast does not take into account that the ice is melting (which is quite likely).
In short the controversy over whether the rise in temperatures is stopping I think it's too early to start it. Maybe if in a year or two is a trend change then we will be able to start talking about what it may mean. On the other hand extrapolation time systems must be evaluated on its real power, and the same way that many questioned its estimates before, rather inappropriate until now, also we should give the same credibility at present. But I think what has happened is that this small forecasts change is magnifying voluntarily simply to continue this policy of doing nothing, and continue burning coal for the benefit who always wins.
One of the reasons this statement is an alleged stagnation of the average temperature of the planet that was recorded last year. To start when I look graphs planetary mean temperature of the last 200 years, I always look to perspective. What does it mean planetary mean temperature of the year 1850? Or Can I compare the mean temperature of 1850 with mean temperatures of 2012? Yes I can do but we must be accurately. In XIX century there was few meteorological observatories, most in cities, and concentrates in zones of Europe and Nord American; while at present we have an extensive network of observatories around the world plus satellites sweep around the globe including the oceans. What I would say is that the value is not in the specific information or inter-annual variation, if we want to evaluate these data we must check the trend of the data at large time scales.
A second item is to evaluate which really shows the planetary mean temperature. Of course it is significant but the problem is of What. In part temperature the measurement of the energy stored in the air, but the amount of energy depends on the heat capacity of the air. This is formed mostly by N2 and O2 molecules and we can be approaching an ideal gas so the molar heat capacity is 7/2R (gas constant: R=0.082 L·Atm/K·mol) because they are a diatomic gases, but not only are these two gases are also water in a 4% of concentration, that have a heat capacity of 9/7R (in ideal approximation of triatomic no lineal molecule) and other gases in residual form. Water concentrations are depending of temperature, orography and other factors exposed in feedback. So there isn’t a direct correlation between temperature and energy stored in the air, because his mount with more factors. Other hand air has little part of energy in relation to oceans which containing 85% of it while the atmosphere contains only 4% of the energy stored in the climate system (the last 11% is stored by continents). We know superficial temperature of oceans, but its deep and middle temperature we only have some occasional measurements, and of course we haven’t the slightest idea how is the temporal evolution of its temperatures that we only have estimates.
A third thing to consider is how it is calculated. This can be calculated as the geometric mean, but this practice hides thermic amplitudes, in an observatory can have two degrees between maxima and minimum and also the difference can be of ten degrees but both would registered the same central value. If mean geometric can lose information, when we make averages these can do of more forms; we can make the main temperature of some hour, maxima, minima, local, annual…And not all observatories have the same geographic conditionings, there are in mountains, cities, deserts… This requires at meteorologist to add criterion with calculation. In short, there are many ways to calculate the average temperature and many criteria to impose, and sometimes criteria change in time.
And last but not less important is thinking that the temperatures show the stored energy in the climate system, but not the total real energy. Let me explain the Stratosphere is the air that we have above the Troposphere that is where weather phenomena occur (where we live). Stratosphere has temperature and capacity heat therefore contains energy, but there it isn’t happening anything, however the Troposphere has weather. Meteorological phenomena absorb energy of the system, and thus lower the temperature. It may seem strange, but such wind is mechanical energy that gives part of it in the mills and wind must absorb this energy of the air or on the sea surface. Current year we had extreme events that have required a lot of energy to occur, but more importantly, it has been considerable melting of ice. If we remember of primary school, teachers learned us that ice meld in one temperature, and if we add energy temperature not increase if rest ice to melt. Part of the energy captured by greenhouse gases has become melted water and it hasn’t affected temperatures.
In short the temperature is a good indicator but that guides weather is the energy stored in the climate system.
Another thing is the mathematical climatic simulation and here there is the question. The problem of these simulations, apart if the assumptions used to make the simulation are correct, is that they are systems of nonlinear differential equations. This type of system has the particularity that they are very sensitive to initial conditions, in other words small differences in the initial values can become completely opposite results when you let time pass. These small differences are so small that they are inferior to measurement errors. This peculiarity was discovered Edward Lorenz the father of Chaos precisely when studying climate systems.
So when we have extrapolated the climatic evolution, it can evolve in a completely unpredictable. In fact when are make these forecasts they should be used statistical systems to give the most likely result. When you make a temporal evolution of such system you don’t do once but you calculate several, because every time you do an evolution that differs from the previous one. To solve it we need cover sufficient values within the margin of error of measurement, and make the mean more deviation of it, which is usually displayed in a weather prevision: expected value (eg rain) and deviation (unlikely, sure ...). How many steps should we do? Well it depends on the scope of the provision, when it is farther back in time we will have more times we do the calculus. Obviously the more far in time is our prevision more iterations and longer machine computation we need. And therefore we are making the long-term forecasts with models that require less iteration and more simplified with the corresponding loss of information and precision.
But for much precision that we put, we haven’t the assurance that our mathematical models are correct. Yes modern meteorology has a great degree of precision. But we think that a model is a simplification, these are mathematical models and not necessarily correspond exactly to the physical, and parameterization of these was done in the present conditions. In this sense, the models don’t need to behave as expected when the energy is much higher than the period in it was parameterized. For example it could be that the forecast does not take into account that the ice is melting (which is quite likely).
In short the controversy over whether the rise in temperatures is stopping I think it's too early to start it. Maybe if in a year or two is a trend change then we will be able to start talking about what it may mean. On the other hand extrapolation time systems must be evaluated on its real power, and the same way that many questioned its estimates before, rather inappropriate until now, also we should give the same credibility at present. But I think what has happened is that this small forecasts change is magnifying voluntarily simply to continue this policy of doing nothing, and continue burning coal for the benefit who always wins.
Comentaris
Publica un comentari a l'entrada