White House issues new dire climate report: Scientists: Extreme weather will worsen if pollutants aren't curbed

[natty bumppo 297]

Childish, simply childish!

he can't hit the head pin?

[HAL 9000 96]

2 The core of a climate model

The Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow are at the heart of climate models. The first three equations represent Newton's second law and give the acceleration of the winds in the east-west (u), north-south (v) and vertical directions (w). The mass-continuity equation ensures that although the density, speed and direction of the air change as it flows around the Earth, its mass is conserved, while the thermodynamic equation allows heat-transfer processes such as heating by the Sun to be included as a parametrized source term (S). We use the same equations to model the dynamics of the ocean, but usually make further simplifying approximations. In the equations, r is the distance from the Earth's centre, Ω is the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation, φ is latitude, λ is longitude and t is time. c_p is the specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure, θ is potential virtual temperature, Π is the "Exner function" of pressure and ρ is air density. The subscript "d" refers to dry air.

Thanks Bill. I presume that fluid dynamics are approximated into more simplified because the density of ocean water tends to be more constant than that of a gaseous atmosphere like ours? Don't you love trig too?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

2 The core of a climate model

The Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow are at the heart of climate models. The first three equations represent Newton's second law and give the acceleration of the winds in the east-west (u), north-south (v) and vertical directions (w). The mass-continuity equation ensures that although the density, speed and direction of the air change as it flows around the Earth, its mass is conserved, while the thermodynamic equation allows heat-transfer processes such as heating by the Sun to be included as a parametrized source term (S). We use the same equations to model the dynamics of the ocean, but usually make further simplifying approximations. In the equations, r is the distance from the Earth's centre, Ω is the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation, φ is latitude, λ is longitude and t is time. c_p is the specific heat capacity of air at constant pressure, θ is potential virtual temperature, Π is the "Exner function" of pressure and ρ is air density. The subscript "d" refers to dry air.

Thanks Bill. I presume that fluid dynamics are approximated into more simplified because the density of ocean water tends to be more constant than that of a gaseous atmosphere like ours? Don't you love trig too?

Hated it. I took a long hiatus before I went back to school, and the trig always came back to bite me in the butt. Thank God HP had polar to rect built into the calculators, so I didn't have to remember that sh!t.

[HAL 9000 96]

But Trig loves you.

Must go provide companionship to the boss.

[scandal 951]

I presume that fluid dynamics are approximated into more simplified because the density of ocean water tends to be more constant than that of a gaseous atmosphere like ours?

No. Both seawater and air can be modeled as incompressible fluids (meaning the divergence or material derivative of the density is zero, Dρ /Dt=0). For most applications air can be considered incompressible. The exception being things like supersonic flight with high Mach numbers. Note that the material derivative is not just the time derivative . Rather, it's the combination of the time derivative and the convection (). Hence for any flow satisfying we can treat it as incompressible.

Caveat 1: I'm not answering your question. Namely, Bill's citation stated that there are simplifications to the model in ocean water - I don't know why that's so, I'm not a climate scientist. All I'm stating is that Hal's presumption that it's due to density variations is not so, because both sea water and atmospheric air for climate purposes can be treated as incompressible.

Caveat 2: In writing this, I'm digging back in my memory about 18 years ago, 1991. My MSc thesis was a numerical solution to a spin-up from rest of a two-phase fluid mixture satisfying the von-Karman similarity assumption. The model was a modified Navier Stokes system to account for the two fluid phases (particulate suspension), N-S treats a single homogeneous fluid regime. The von-Karman solution is useful for rotating cylindrical flows because it reduces the three dimensional geometry (r, theta, z + time) down to one spatial dimension (a scaled vertical coordinate) + time. The flows I was looking into were incompressible and obeying linear stress/strain relationship, as for classical N-S. The numerical solutions involved a very stiff boundary layer that was non-physical (smaller than particulate size), and could not be removed without adding suction at the layer.

Anyway, that's my background in computational fluid dynamics. Unfortunately I am now 2 decades out of practice. I can tell you much more about put/call spreads on options than I can about Navier Stokes.

Caveat 3: Mr. Bill.. what's the point of your post? Other than it being fun to geek out for a bit .

Navier-Stokes is the basic model for analyzing fluid flow. You've posted the model in spherical coordinates - ok, Earth is a sphere. So far the only argument would come from flat earther's who would argue with (r, theta, phi) coordinates and would insist on two-dimensional planar coordinates.

Since even Gary is not a Flat-Earther, even he won't have a problem with the model. The question is .. the solution to the model. And that's all about the boundary values and initial values used. Plug in different BC/IC, you will get radically different (u,v,w) flows, and pressures, and temperatures out of the solution. All the juicy bits of a GW argument will come from the BC/IC used (and to some extent, the correctness and accuracy of the numerical technique used to solve).

What I'm trying to say is, think of your equation set as a black box. Or better yet - your PC computer, brand new just home from the store. It's a machine. What you do with it, what data you put in it, what results you get out, are still undetermined. Load your PC with video editing software, you can make movies. Load it with Mathematica - you can solve PDEs. The N-S model is clay to be molded into a solution. It's not in itself a solution. And hence it doesn't in itself tell us what is or is not true about Global Warming or anything else.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I presume that fluid dynamics are approximated into more simplified because the density of ocean water tends to be more constant than that of a gaseous atmosphere like ours?

No. Both seawater and air can be modeled as incompressible fluids (meaning the divergence or material derivative of the density is zero, Dρ /Dt=0). For most applications air can be considered incompressible. The exception being things like supersonic flight with high Mach numbers. Note that the material derivative is not just the time derivative . Rather, it's the combination of the time derivative and the convection (). Hence for any flow satisfying we can treat it as incompressible.

Caveat 1: I'm not answering your question. Namely, Bill's citation stated that there are simplifications to the model in ocean water - I don't know why that's so, I'm not a climate scientist. All I'm stating is that Hal's presumption that it's due to density variations is not so, because both sea water and atmospheric air for climate purposes can be treated as incompressible.

Caveat 2: In writing this, I'm digging back in my memory about 18 years ago, 1991. My MSc thesis was a numerical solution to a spin-up from rest of a two-phase fluid mixture satisfying the von-Karman similarity assumption. The model was a modified Navier Stokes system to account for the two fluid phases (particulate suspension), N-S treats a single homogeneous fluid regime. The von-Karman solution is useful for rotating cylindrical flows because it reduces the three dimensional geometry (r, theta, z + time) down to one spatial dimension (a scaled vertical coordinate) + time. The flows I was looking into were incompressible and obeying linear stress/strain relationship, as for classical N-S. The numerical solutions involved a very stiff boundary layer that was non-physical (smaller than particulate size), and could not be removed without adding suction at the layer.

Anyway, that's my background in computational fluid dynamics. Unfortunately I am now 2 decades out of practice. I can tell you much more about put/call spreads on options than I can about Navier Stokes.

Caveat 3: Mr. Bill.. what's the point of your post? Other than it being fun to geek out for a bit .

Navier-Stokes is the basic model for analyzing fluid flow. You've posted the model in spherical coordinates - ok, Earth is a sphere. So far the only argument would come from flat earther's who would argue with (r, theta, phi) coordinates and would insist on two-dimensional planar coordinates.

Since even Gary is not a Flat-Earther, even he won't have a problem with the model. The question is .. the solution to the model. And that's all about the boundary values and initial values used. Plug in different BC/IC, you will get radically different (u,v,w) flows, and pressures, and temperatures out of the solution. All the juicy bits of a GW argument will come from the BC/IC used (and to some extent, the correctness and accuracy of the numerical technique used to solve).

What I'm trying to say is, think of your equation set as a black box. Or better yet - your PC computer, brand new just home from the store. It's a machine. What you do with it, what data you put in it, what results you get out, are still undetermined. Load your PC with video editing software, you can make movies. Load it with Mathematica - you can solve PDEs. The N-S model is clay to be molded into a solution. It's not in itself a solution. And hence it doesn't in itself tell us what is or is not true about Global Warming or anything else.

That's some heavy stuff. I better stick to being a chopfvck, it comes naturally.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I presume that fluid dynamics are approximated into more simplified because the density of ocean water tends to be more constant than that of a gaseous atmosphere like ours?

No. Both seawater and air can be modeled as incompressible fluids (meaning the divergence or material derivative of the density is zero, Dρ /Dt=0). For most applications air can be considered incompressible. The exception being things like supersonic flight with high Mach numbers. Note that the material derivative is not just the time derivative . Rather, it's the combination of the time derivative and the convection (). Hence for any flow satisfying we can treat it as incompressible.

Caveat 1: I'm not answering your question. Namely, Bill's citation stated that there are simplifications to the model in ocean water - I don't know why that's so, I'm not a climate scientist. All I'm stating is that Hal's presumption that it's due to density variations is not so, because both sea water and atmospheric air for climate purposes can be treated as incompressible.

Caveat 2: In writing this, I'm digging back in my memory about 18 years ago, 1991. My MSc thesis was a numerical solution to a spin-up from rest of a two-phase fluid mixture satisfying the von-Karman similarity assumption. The model was a modified Navier Stokes system to account for the two fluid phases (particulate suspension), N-S treats a single homogeneous fluid regime. The von-Karman solution is useful for rotating cylindrical flows because it reduces the three dimensional geometry (r, theta, z + time) down to one spatial dimension (a scaled vertical coordinate) + time. The flows I was looking into were incompressible and obeying linear stress/strain relationship, as for classical N-S. The numerical solutions involved a very stiff boundary layer that was non-physical (smaller than particulate size), and could not be removed without adding suction at the layer.

Anyway, that's my background in computational fluid dynamics. Unfortunately I am now 2 decades out of practice. I can tell you much more about put/call spreads on options than I can about Navier Stokes.

Caveat 3: Mr. Bill.. what's the point of your post? Other than it being fun to geek out for a bit .

Navier-Stokes is the basic model for analyzing fluid flow. You've posted the model in spherical coordinates - ok, Earth is a sphere. So far the only argument would come from flat earther's who would argue with (r, theta, phi) coordinates and would insist on two-dimensional planar coordinates.

Since even Gary is not a Flat-Earther, even he won't have a problem with the model. The question is .. the solution to the model. And that's all about the boundary values and initial values used. Plug in different BC/IC, you will get radically different (u,v,w) flows, and pressures, and temperatures out of the solution. All the juicy bits of a GW argument will come from the BC/IC used (and to some extent, the correctness and accuracy of the numerical technique used to solve).

What I'm trying to say is, think of your equation set as a black box. Or better yet - your PC computer, brand new just home from the store. It's a machine. What you do with it, what data you put in it, what results you get out, are still undetermined. Load your PC with video editing software, you can make movies. Load it with Mathematica - you can solve PDEs. The N-S model is clay to be molded into a solution. It's not in itself a solution. And hence it doesn't in itself tell us what is or is not true about Global Warming or anything else.

No point other than to show the complexity and number of variables in the "basic" equations.

Air in the upper atmoshere can travel at speeds of 400 Km/h, or approaching 50% or more of the reduced speed of sound due to the lower temperature and density.

[HAL 9000 96]

Holy smokes brother scandal... I was lost for a moment but I followed the logic behind the math and presto-... my fluid dynamics circuits understood. I am glad to have another scientist... have you a computational background as it may, in OT!! Now I know whom to bother the next time I have flow rate issues with my lab HPLC rigs...

Now I retire for the evening. 12:30 AM, South Side of Chicago, and I can hear tropospheric precipitation colliding with the planet's crust along with a slight increase in air pressure outside the window I am located at.

Bill... even with those upper atmospheric variations in air speed and density... keep in mind that since CO2 has mass, gravity will keep it more condensed at lower altitudes, and hence the molecular motion points I stated earlier back. Good reading from you and Scandal-ous!

[HAL 9000 96]

I guess what I am stating comes from a molecular dynamics issue... and since heat energy is concentrated when molecules are in greater proximity to each other, as well as energy release when more molecules collide (density), then that's why there are differences in atmospheric layers in CO2 heat absorption/retention as a function of molecular density.

Anyway now its for real. My AI wouldn't let me go without that.

[HAL 9000 96]

Ha!

Made you look...

[NickD 203]

Classical multi-term formulas like shown above are derived from making very careful measurements of observed phenomena. Typically, just one of the terms will get you well into the ballpark where the remainders are fudge factors. When dealing with court cases or US patents, such formulas are not even permitted, they want real honest test data.

Creating an accurate model of the earth in terms of climate changes and affecting factors is a mountainous task to say the least, and for more practical than using established equations is to use a finite element analysis, what you learn in school and what has to be done in industry is two different things.

A practical way to measure the effects of man's affect on the climate would be to load the earth with some very accurate sensors, shut down all fossil fuel burning for a period of time to gather a data base, then suddenly, say burn a trillion gallons of gasoline to measure the changes. Impractical maybe, but would give accurate results. Simulating such conditions in a laboratory can result in some very inaccurate conclusions as well as writing a computer model of the earth.

A more accurate answer would be, computer cannot compute, insufficient or erroneous data.

That integral/differential calculus stuff you beat your brain over only works with simple continuous functions while we live in a very discontinuous world. Maybe fine to making a vessel to maximize volume with minimum surface area, but marketing doesn't like that. Want a bottle 12 by 12 inches by 1/8" thick so they can put plenty of sell on the front and don't forget the child safety cap in the real world.

To be successful in engineering or the sciences, you have to provide positive money making results, just can't walk around with text book and slide rule mumbling theory. But the latter is predominate in the political field.

Practically all the machines we have made to present, compete with us for survival, could make an issue out of that, we are killing ourselves with our current technology, this is real, not theoretical.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Holy smokes brother scandal... I was lost for a moment but I followed the logic behind the math and presto-... my fluid dynamics circuits understood. I am glad to have another scientist... have you a computational background as it may, in OT!! Now I know whom to bother the next time I have flow rate issues with my lab HPLC rigs...

Now I retire for the evening. 12:30 AM, South Side of Chicago, and I can hear tropospheric precipitation colliding with the planet's crust along with a slight increase in air pressure outside the window I am located at.

Bill... even with those upper atmospheric variations in air speed and density... keep in mind that since CO2 has mass, gravity will keep it more condensed at lower altitudes, and hence the molecular motion points I stated earlier back. Good reading from you and Scandal-ous!

I was thinking about that last night on the way to pick up the wife from work. The heavier gases should concentrate at lower altitudes. As far as why a liquid might enable simplication over gases, the changes in the system as observed in the Ideal Gas Law could be ignored when dealing with liquids. I also considered the difference in liquid currents at sea level versus air currents at altitude.

I am so far away from that stuff. The math is still recognizable, but the theory behind the equations is a blur. I looked at my old physics books a few weeks ago, and I was lost trying to understand Newton's Second Law.

[HAL 9000 96]

Holy smokes brother scandal... I was lost for a moment but I followed the logic behind the math and presto-... my fluid dynamics circuits understood. I am glad to have another scientist... have you a computational background as it may, in OT!! Now I know whom to bother the next time I have flow rate issues with my lab HPLC rigs...

Now I retire for the evening. 12:30 AM, South Side of Chicago, and I can hear tropospheric precipitation colliding with the planet's crust along with a slight increase in air pressure outside the window I am located at.

Bill... even with those upper atmospheric variations in air speed and density... keep in mind that since CO2 has mass, gravity will keep it more condensed at lower altitudes, and hence the molecular motion points I stated earlier back. Good reading from you and Scandal-ous!

I was thinking about that last night on the way to pick up the wife from work. The heavier gases should concentrate at lower altitudes. As far as why a liquid might enable simplication over gases, the changes in the system as observed in the Ideal Gas Law could be ignored when dealing with liquids. I also considered the difference in liquid currents at sea level versus air currents at altitude.

I am so far away from that stuff. The math is still recognizable, but the theory behind the equations is a blur. I looked at my old physics books a few weeks ago, and I was lost trying to understand Newton's Second Law.

Yeah I get you... even though CO2 isn't as heavy as some other pollutant gases, its still sufficient mass to collect due to gravity.

Regarding PV=nRT... although the atmosphere is a closed system, its still large enough for conditions to not be constant enough and I think this gas law is inapplicable to both kinds of fluid systems due to its principal use in high temperature/low pressure dynamics. Although we could visualize it being more relevant as atmospheric pressure becomes more static and temperature increases... but I think the formula is far beyond even those limits. The formula also tends to ignore the interaction between molecules and the energy game between them... I guess this is almost negligible for tiny gases like H2 in a large atmosphere... but CO2 has a little more beef to it. Yes I had to look in my chem text.

Anyway... back to biology for the next couple of hours.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Holy smokes brother scandal... I was lost for a moment but I followed the logic behind the math and presto-... my fluid dynamics circuits understood. I am glad to have another scientist... have you a computational background as it may, in OT!! Now I know whom to bother the next time I have flow rate issues with my lab HPLC rigs...

Now I retire for the evening. 12:30 AM, South Side of Chicago, and I can hear tropospheric precipitation colliding with the planet's crust along with a slight increase in air pressure outside the window I am located at.

Bill... even with those upper atmospheric variations in air speed and density... keep in mind that since CO2 has mass, gravity will keep it more condensed at lower altitudes, and hence the molecular motion points I stated earlier back. Good reading from you and Scandal-ous!

I was thinking about that last night on the way to pick up the wife from work. The heavier gases should concentrate at lower altitudes. As far as why a liquid might enable simplication over gases, the changes in the system as observed in the Ideal Gas Law could be ignored when dealing with liquids. I also considered the difference in liquid currents at sea level versus air currents at altitude.

I am so far away from that stuff. The math is still recognizable, but the theory behind the equations is a blur. I looked at my old physics books a few weeks ago, and I was lost trying to understand Newton's Second Law.

Yeah I get you... even though CO2 isn't as heavy as some other pollutant gases, its still sufficient mass to collect due to gravity.

Regarding PV=nRT... although the atmosphere is a closed system, its still large enough for conditions to not be constant enough and I think this gas law is inapplicable to both kinds of fluid systems due to its principal use in high temperature/low pressure dynamics. Although we could visualize it being more relevant as atmospheric pressure becomes more static and temperature increases... but I think the formula is far beyond even those limits. The formula also tends to ignore the interaction between molecules and the energy game between them... I guess this is almost negligible for tiny gases like H2 in a large atmosphere... but CO2 has a little more beef to it. Yes I had to look in my chem text.

Anyway... back to biology for the next couple of hours.

CO₂ is heavy enough to smother a fire; or displace all the oxygen in an area, as I found out one time using the compressed gas to run an air tool in a confined space.

Time to go whack some weeds before it gets too hot and the yellow jackets start waking up.

[natty bumppo 297]

Holy smokes brother scandal... I was lost for a moment but I followed the logic behind the math and presto-... my fluid dynamics circuits understood. I am glad to have another scientist... have you a computational background as it may, in OT!! Now I know whom to bother the next time I have flow rate issues with my lab HPLC rigs...

Now I retire for the evening. 12:30 AM, South Side of Chicago, and I can hear tropospheric precipitation colliding with the planet's crust along with a slight increase in air pressure outside the window I am located at.

Bill... even with those upper atmospheric variations in air speed and density... keep in mind that since CO2 has mass, gravity will keep it more condensed at lower altitudes, and hence the molecular motion points I stated earlier back. Good reading from you and Scandal-ous!

I was thinking about that last night on the way to pick up the wife from work. The heavier gases should concentrate at lower altitudes. As far as why a liquid might enable simplication over gases, the changes in the system as observed in the Ideal Gas Law could be ignored when dealing with liquids. I also considered the difference in liquid currents at sea level versus air currents at altitude.

I am so far away from that stuff. The math is still recognizable, but the theory behind the equations is a blur. I looked at my old physics books a few weeks ago, and I was lost trying to understand Newton's Second Law.

Yeah I get you... even though CO2 isn't as heavy as some other pollutant gases, its still sufficient mass to collect due to gravity.

Regarding PV=nRT... although the atmosphere is a closed system, its still large enough for conditions to not be constant enough and I think this gas law is inapplicable to both kinds of fluid systems due to its principal use in high temperature/low pressure dynamics. Although we could visualize it being more relevant as atmospheric pressure becomes more static and temperature increases... but I think the formula is far beyond even those limits. The formula also tends to ignore the interaction between molecules and the energy game between them... I guess this is almost negligible for tiny gases like H2 in a large atmosphere... but CO2 has a little more beef to it. Yes I had to look in my chem text.

Anyway... back to biology for the next couple of hours.

CO₂ is heavy enough to smother a fire; or displace all the oxygen in an area, as I found out one time using the compressed gas to run an air tool in a confined space.

Time to go whack some weeds before it gets too hot and the yellow jackets start waking up.

what did they do to you?

oh wait ... you're harvesting them