Climatology

Not a favourite channel for my endeavours. …

Every month or so I get a newsletter about extreme weather and stuff from:
http://www.comet.ucar.edu/

Today's invited me on a course (open to all so don't hold back.)
There is a pre-test to let them know how well I aught to do and how badly I already am doing. I tried to leave my politics out of it and answer as honestly as I could.
(Both? At the same time?)

My results for Introduction to Climate Models Pre-Assessment: 19 of 35 points, or 54%

This score reflects how well you understand this topic before taking the module. (Actually it reflects the ratio of my understanding of the subject compared to their understanding of the subject) The pre-assessment score does not contribute in any way to my final score.

When you are ready, close this window and proceed with the module.

Listed below are the questions from the quiz and the number correct out of the number possible for each question.

Why do we model the Earth’s climate system? 3/3

Which transports more heat from low to high latitudes? 0/2

The physical basis of climate and weather models mostly depends on which one of the following? 3/3

If I want use a climate model simulation to make a 30-day seasonal outlook for snow in the Rocky Mountains, which conditions would need to be updated before I started the model run? 2/2

Unlike resolved processes, parameterized processes in climate models are not constrained by fundamental laws of physics. 2/2

Weather models and atmospheric climate models tend to parameterize different processes. 2/2

Why do modelers tune climate models? 0/4

Climate models are typically tuned by changing which one of the following? 0/4

Increasing resolution in an atmospheric model simulation will have little effect on a coupled ocean model simulation and vice versa. 2/2

Models in a steady state drift very slowly toward their own particular climatology. 0/2

Natural variability is poorly simulated by climate models, but unimportant for the generation of long-term climate statistics. 2/2

The inclusion of ecosystems in climate models allows the models to do which of the following? 3/3

The biases that remain after running climate models at very high resolution most likely result from which one of the following features? 0/4

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Climatology

  1. When iceberg calves that are tens of miles in area, break off glaciers in Antarctica we are immediately inundated not with brine but with bad journalism and sensationalism about the state of the planet.The fact is that "experts" have know something I only found out yesterday, that these glaciers have been IN THE SEA for centuries.And it escapes all comment.It isn't that giant icebergs have suddenly gone to sea. The whole of two glaciers have been in it for prehistoric millennia. The bergs then float off. 1/11th of them above the surface of the sea.So now we have not a rise in water levels but a drop in them. Or if not, then there is no overall difference.As for Isostasy, if the two great ice shelves there defrost, it will make the rest of Antarctica heavier. Currently the underwater ice is making the continent more buoyant.(That's assuming the glaciers are welded to the land mass. I doubt it is. It is more likely merely held in place by it's thickness and the mass further inland.)The question this begs has to do with applied mechanics. A free floating ice mass is trapped in a wedge of mountains; therefore:What hinge effects do tides and storms have on the region?

  2. Ah crap:Why do we model the climate system?Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, have increased substantially in the atmosphere. The past several decades have seen a significant rise in global surface temperatures. The climate change associated with this warming may have profound impacts for society. For example, the frequency of extreme events, like the flooding that struck the midwest in 1993, may increase with a high toll on society. > greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, have increased substantially in the atmosphere.That is a matter of opinion.Here's another one:http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49770

  3. This module explains how climate models work. Our intended audience is the weather forecasting community: those who are already familiar with NWP models. We explain not only how, but why climate models differ from weather models.We have attempted to restrict the scope of this module to climate models, rather than climate science. We do however, draw upon climate science to illuminate the questions that climate models answer and to illustrate concepts with data from models and observations. For example, we do not attempt to explain the mechanics of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), but we show examples of observations and model simulations of ENSO phenomena. There are many resources available that explain climate science, including several modules available at the MetEd website.Non-forecasters with an interest in weather and climate should also find the module useful. The content is not overly technical and our goal is not to train people to develop climate models. Because we assume some familiarity with weather models, those unfamiliar with them may wish to view the short COMET module: Model Fundamentals before starting this one.

  4. I have to say now, I amore inclined to the belifs of this commentator:http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49770Than I am to more expert analysts.Originally posted by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser:

    The August issue of Water 21, the official magazine of the International Water Association has an article by Lis Stedman on “Reports warn of climate change impact on oceans” that is highly misleading.Stedman provides a summary of an UN Development Programme (UNDP) report issued around the time of the Rio+20 conference earlier this year in Rio de Janeiro.

    As far as I am aware, the United Nations has been a débâcle since its inception and has got worse whenever it could do worse than become more and more futile.As is well known from many locations, any intrusion of seawater into freshwater aquifers raises (not lowers) the freshwater water table. That’s a simple consequence of the physics, i.e. higher density of saltwater compared to freshwater.If the withdrawal of freshwater from that aquifer is larger than the natural rate of replenishment, that freshwater resource may [will] become depleted. But that has absolutely nothing to do with any warming or cooling of the oceans.The UNDP reported “warming ocean waters cause major shifts in fish distribution and severe degradation of coastal habitats”. Ocean systems resources current exploitation may already be well beyond its re-generation capacity.But, instead of blaming over-exploitation as the culprit, it’s climate change!As if there were not numerous examples of fish stock depletion due to over-fishing, destruction of spawning grounds and habitat by all kinds of means. I recommend the book “Out of Fishermen’s Hands…” and my brief chapters on “The Cod Story” and related subjects in “Convenient Myths.”Further down in the article, the true facts are slowly coming out more clearly:“There are many causes of habitat degradation…” including shoreline construction, mangrove cutting, sedimentation and siltation. Consequences of climate change, not a result of local/area changes resulting from human activities. Increased sediment loadings by rivers must be due to climate change, not to any dyke-ing of river banks in their flood plains, or to dredging of river channels, and so forth.Climate Change BrainwashThe UN and all the climate-change-doom-and-gloom harbingers are actually doing a great disservice to the people most affected. By shifting the blame from local/country mismanagement to their cause celebre of climate change, they only encourage further mismanagement and prevent true corrective management actions.It is nearly universal fact that human alteration of the natural system is causing unforeseen consequences. Sea level rise (bunkum), melting Himalayan glaciers (bunkum), declining fish stocks (true in many areas – but not because of climate change), increased siltation (true in many areas – but not because of climate change) and numerous other changes are among them.For example, the annual floods of the Nile River previously added large amounts of new, nutrient-laden sediments to the river delta. After construction of the Aswan dam (1970), the fertility of the delta area declined substantially and it also experienced a loss of size due to the lack of the (previous) annual sediment addition and natural erosion.The climate change brainwash needs to end!

  5. On 10/02/2012, Michael McNeil (Weatherlawyer@gmail.com) completed Introduction to Climate Models Pre-Assessment with a score of 54% as part of the MetEd Program.A passing score for this quiz is 75%.***Personally I am quite proud of my results. But would have been just as much if they had been lower.Thick, or what?

  6. OOH!This is interesting:Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    2.the state in which pressures from every side are equal.

    It means that tropical storms are isostatic.So where does that leave higher latitude and extra-tropical ones?

  7. I thought I'd spelled Isostacy right the first time:isostacy i·sos·ta·sy   [ahy-sos-tuh-see] Show IPAnoun1.Geology . the equilibrium of the earth's crust, a condition in which the forces tending to elevate balance those tending to depress.2.the state in which pressures from every side are equal. Dictionary dot com

  8. Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    Isostasy, if the two great ice shelves there defrost, it will make the rest of Antarctica heavier? Currently the underwater ice is making the continent more buoyant.(That's assuming the glaciers are welded to the land mass. I doubt it is. It is more likely merely held in place by it's thickness and the mass further inland.)The question this begs has to do with applied mechanics. A free floating ice mass is trapped in a wedge of mountains; therefore:What hinge effects do tides and storms have on the region?

    The two greatest ice shelves in Antarctica separate the isthmus from the main continent. Some say the ice forms most of the land mass.The ice reaches to the sea bed and the sea bed is deep between the main continent and the western side -the Isthmus.Under almost all the glaciers known, there is a layer of water. It is because of pressure and because the ice admits light and is insulating the depths.So assume the ice of the Ross shelf and in the Weddel Bay is free floating with a few inches or many feet of water beneath.What is the likely effect it has on whatever…There are so many ramifications to all of this.

  9. Originally posted by Wikipedia:

    Antarctic sea ice anomalies have roughly followed the pattern of warming, with the greatest declines occurring off the coast of West Antarctica. The atmospheric warming has been directly linked to the recent mass losses in West Antarctica. This mass loss is more likely to be due to increased melting of the ice shelves because of changes in ocean circulation patterns (which themselves may be linked to atmospheric circulation changes that may also explain the warming trends in West Antarctica).Melting of the ice shelves in turn causes the ice streams to speed up. The melting and disappearance of the floating ice shelves will only have a small effect on sea level, which is due to salinity differences. The most important consequence of their increased melting is the speed up of the ice streams on land which are buttressed by these ice shelves.

    First of all, this link claimed to be global warming is tenuous and seems to be contradicted by the length of the Antarctic winter this year.If all of the ice is free floating, then any breakages are more likely to be due to dynamic forces not temperature change.Sea ice breaks and grows together all the time. Broken by sea action and welded by low temperatures.

  10. Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    Which transports more heat from low to high latitudes? 0/2

    I put the sea does. I can't believe they believe it is the air.I can't imagine where they thingk the air gets its heat from.Air is perfectly transparent to all solar wavelengths except some infra red.Infra red makes up about 1% of sunlight the rest is the colour spectrum and 1% UV.All of that hits the water and goes in. Some is reflected back but most of it becomes heat.Since most of it becomes heat, it has to be viewed as the original heat source as far as weather goes.So I am never going to make it as a climatologist.Big deal.But if you want more, there are some more links on this post:http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.weather/browse_frm/thread/46f32f4621f147ae#I've been wrong before. So don't let me put you off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s