Supercomputers may help predict climate changes locally
August 7, 2011 By Renee Schoof, McClatchy Newspapers
Even a century ago, scientists working out equations on paper understood that gases in the atmosphere absorbed and emitted energy, keeping Earth from being a ball of ice. Today they use supercomputers to make increasingly refined predictions about how the Earth's climate will change.
The new efforts take the question from global to local scale. Nations, states and communities have lots of climate-related questions: Should they divert water from one area to another? Build higher sea walls? Store and manage water the way Israel does today? Plan for many more 100-degree days in future summers?
"We can't answer those questions with the capabilities we have today. That's why we're using supercomputers to push the limits of what we understand and how well we can predict," said James Kinter. He's a professor in the climate dynamics Ph.D. program at George Mason University in Virginia and the director of the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies.
"We know with a high degree of certainty that the planet is warming up, and so just on average every place is going to be warmer," Kinter said. "But nobody lives on the average."
Scientists have used computer-generated models for decades to understand the past, present and future climate by studying the interaction of the oceans, atmosphere, land and ice. Kinter said climate models today showed changes on a continental scale, but that faster computers would be able to make better predictions at regional and local scales.
Better computers should help with the difficult climate problem of clouds. Clouds interfere with the flow of energy between the Earth and the sun in two ways, Kinter said. They reflect some of the sun's energy back to space, a cooling effect. But they also absorb and send back some of the energy that the Earth emits, just as gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere do. That's a warming effect.
Recent models looked at the Earth as if it were covered by a grid of 2 degrees by 2 degrees, or boxes that were more than 19,000 square miles each, which is roughly half the size of Kentucky. The computer model sees everything within the box as being the same, but of course no clouds are that big.
Today's models are better. And scientists hope to have a computer that's 1,000 times as powerful as those today by the end of this decade. That still won't be robust enough to deliver models as precise as desired, but they'll be closer than today's, Kinter said.
Computers also are used to simulate how different types of particles, known as aerosols, scatter or absorb heat in different ways, and how the particles interact with clouds.
"When people say clouds and aerosols, that's shorthand for tough problem," Kinter said. "And representing all that quantitatively in the models is a real challenge."
Thousands of scientists around the world are working on better climate models. Kinter and his group focus on how predictable extreme events such as floods, droughts and heat waves will be as the climate changes.
Lawrence Buja, the director of the Climate Science and Application Program at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said climate models had moved quickly from "Climate 1.0" to "Climate 2.0."
In Climate 1.0, the main issue was to prove that human-caused climate change was happening. "For that we needed models developed over 40 years to understand and address this question," he said.
The last review of international climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 concluded that warming was "unequivocal" and primarily the result of human activities, mostly the burning of coal, oil and gas.
With that, Climate 2.0 began.
"Almost overnight, the question changed to 'What is the impact of this climate change on our human and natural systems?' " Buja said.
As computers improve, climate scientists can make increasingly better models, Buja said.
"We can do finer-scale modeling with more powerful computers and address these Climate 2.0 questions," he said.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research today hosts one of the world's top computers for climate models, used by Kinter's group and many other scientists. Next year a better computer will open in a new facility in Cheyenne, Wyo. The current site couldn't house the next generation of computing, Buja said.
National Center for Atmospheric Research and Department of Energy scientists' models were major contributions to the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Buja said they now were finishing models for the next international review of climate science, due in 2014.
"There's a huge economic cost of responding to this," Buja said. "We need to make sure we're presenting as convincing a case as we can."
It hasn't been easy. In the latest signal of distrust of computer models, Republicans in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives have put a provision in the foreign aid spending bill that would eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(c) 2011, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at http://www.mcclatchydc.com.
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
2 comments
-
Hypothetical desert earth
15 hours ago
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
2 minutes ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
It took some 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction of all time, latest research has revealed.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
3 minutes ago |
not rated yet |
0
|
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isnt interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (13) |
39
Kyoto Protocol architect 'frustrated' by climate dialogue
UN climate talks are going nowhere, as politicians dither or bicker while the pace of warming dangerously speeds up, one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol told AFP.
May 23, 2012 |
3.7 / 5 (7) |
39
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Manufacturing genes to attack flu virus
An international research team has manufactured a new protein that can combat deadly flu epidemics.
Same gene that stunts infants' growth also makes them grow too big: research
UCLA geneticists have identified the mutation responsible for IMAGe* syndrome, a rare disorder that stunts infants' growth. The twist? The mutation occurs on the same gene that causes Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, which makes ...
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (9)
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
In other news...I hope that they improve on the global models before they decide to start adopting them locally. Or, maybe it would be better to do the opposite and, then, take that local data to plug into the global models and see what comes out.
Could get as interesting as the recent University of Copenhagen Arctic ice study about to be published in Science.
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
The Global models are fine. It's just you guys aren't. Your arguments are weak and untruthful.
Aug 07, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
A Marxist is president. Vedi probably has a 'people's medal' by now.
I toured NCAR in 1982. They had the best computer's then, too. GIGO.
Aug 08, 2011
Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
And here I thought that Red Baiting went out with the Cancerous McCarthy Era.
Extermination is in order.
Aug 08, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
No. They aren't fine. There is quite a bit of discrepancy between them that is of concern. Have you never read AR4???
And, did you hear about the new University of Copenhagen study that will shortly be published in Science? If you didn't, it will shock your socks off. The study shows that the Arctic will not reach a tipping point even if the ice pack reaches as low as 50%! There is more but I shant ruin it for everybody who is unaware of the contents of this study.
Aug 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Aug 12, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Oh you mean the one that shows N2O (Nitrous Oxide, Laughing gas) is also a dangerous green house gas with a heat trapping capability 1620 times that of CO2.
No SR your still full of BS. Chaos theory does limit how precise global warming models can predict into the future, but the overall models for the seasonal scale are very accurate. So your argument is just weak.
Aug 12, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Looser trash.
Aug 17, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
As a people, we decided the florocarbons where a danger to the ozone and banded them, but when CO2 appears to be building up to levels where it's heat trapping effect will have global consequences, nearly half the US population thinks the science is bad, or that scientist are in it for the money.
There is only one reason for that SRex, an effective propaganda campaign. That is pathetic situation we are in right now.
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
SF6 is slated for ban but has not yet been banned. NF3 is not even on the radar in spite of the fact that it is around 17,000 times (or greater under certain circumstances) more potent a GHG than CO2, molecule for molecule. And, unlike CO2, these gasses are believed to have a life of thousands of years.
You don't see some degree of hypocrisy in this?
Aug 18, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Aug 19, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2 (or, 965,000 ppm), but the atmosphere there is somewhere between 90 and 92 times the density of Earth's atmosphere, which atmosphere of Earth exerts 1 bar of pressure.
Another fact is that Venus, even though it has less of a percentage of N2 in its atmosphere than does earth, it still contains far more nitrogen than does the entire atmosphere of earth.
The above is why it is physically impossible for mankind to turn this planet into another Venus. If 'deepsand' is not convinced, simply look up the data. The truth is out there. :)
Aug 19, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
If Howhot didnt mean it, Howhot should not have written it. I have misrepresented nothing and merely asked whether Howhot still holds to the view that Howhot posted elsewhere. So, given that you one-ranked the question, I assumed that you disagreed with me that it is physically impossible for man to turn this planet into another Venus by burning fossil fuels.
Do you agree? Or, will you show agreement with the position that the earth will be turned into another Venus, like Al Gore implies in his video presentations, by one-ranking this post?
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Citation(s) required.
I.e., you assumed facts not in evidence.
Misrepresentation.
Non sequitur. The rating of the quality of your post neither depends on criteria dictated by you, nor signals that which you define.
In this case, you get a "1" for engaging in such sophistry.
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
You can search for them yourself. You may be a big boy so it will not be that hard. But, to humor you, here is one where Howhot states something about saving the earth from a "Venus heat disaster" and so forth.
As I said, the posts are around the site. Go look for them, if you really are interested, and don't ask others to do your homework for you. :)
So, when Al Gore gives his presentations, and I have seen some of them when he has given them, and he has slides that show earth morphing into an image of Venus at the end, what is he then representing? Is that not implication, as I suggested? It is hardly a misrepresentation to call attention to the implication.
Quality is in the eye of the beholder. :)
Aug 20, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Your claim, your burden.
Figurative speech.
Don't ask other to do your substantiation for you.
Once again, figurative, as opposed to the literal.
Yep; which is why you get another "1" for the above.
Aug 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Likewise... :)