climate modelling and weather modelling | ecology news at
latest changes & additions at link to short briefings documents link to document abstracts link to list of useful data tables quotations at, with source document where relevant economics and money zone at - government swindles and how to transfer money on the net latest news headlines at abelard's news and comment zone socialism, sociology, supporting documents described France zone at - another France Energy - beyond fossil fuels visit abelard's gallery about abelard and

back to abelard's front page

site map

news and comment

article archives at abelard's news and comment zone topic archives: ecology

for previously archived news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button above)

New translation, the Magna Carta


This page helpful? Share it!

climate modelling and weather modelling

Weather modelling can be confused with climate modelling, but they are very different.

Weather modelling
"They take the analysis as the starting point and evolve the state of the atmosphere forward in time using understanding of physics and fluid dynamics."
[Quoted from]

Climate modelling

3:37 mins

Marker at

Weather models are based on local (in time and place) fluid dynamics.

Climate models (as is explained here) are based on macro elements such as mountain features and ocean currents.
Weather models do not concern themselves with Milankovich cycles or greenhouse gas concentrations!

As a crude analogy, examining the way fuels ('fluids') behave in a car engine is very different from examining traffic patterns. Traffic patterns can be treated as flows (similar to fluids), but very different factors are used. That does not mean that similar types of maths cannot be used in both forms ('models').

Numeracy does not mean being able to turn the handle on the machine (model) and being able to read off the numbers. It means understanding what the numbers mean in the real world.

related material
anthropogenic global warming, and ocean acidity
global warming
how to teach a person number, arithmetic, mathematics - introduction
child education zone zone - fundamental education article

the web address for the article above is




is CO2 good for the environment?

Humans would be wiped out by too much CO2. but no worries. That won't come until CO2. levels are 50 to 150 times higher than at present.

The filthy fossil fuel industry, after running out of arguments, now tries to sell., "carbon dioxide is good for plants".
This a gross and misleading over-simplification:

"However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an older, wiser saying that goes, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, taking four is not likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.

"It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. It is based on this that 'skeptics' make their claims. However, such claims are simplistic. They fail to take into account that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will have an increase in deserts and other arid lands which would reduce the area available for crops. 

"Plants cannot live on CO2 alone."

"In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change

"It will simply increase the size of deserts and decrease the amount of arable land. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

"Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses." [Quoted from]

Even if you could remove the 'excess' CO2 from the atmosphere, oceanic catastrophe is still on the board because acidification would continue as the oceans build up acid levels.3


"The oceans are currently taking up about one tonne of human-derived CO2 per year for each person on the planet. Almost a half of the CO2 produced in the past 200 years from burning fossil fuels and cement manufacture has been absorbed by the oceans. Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our understanding of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has already reduced surface seawater pH by about 0.1 units, which corresponds to an increase of about 30% in the concentration of hydrogen ions

"As CO2 continues to enter the atmosphere from human activity, a proportion will be taken up by the oceans. If CO2 emissions are not regulated, this could result in the pH decreasing by 0.5 units by the year 2100. This is beyond the range of current natural variability and probably to a level not experienced for at least hundreds of thousands of years and possibly much longer. Critically, the rate of change is also probably at least 100 times higher than the maximum rate during this time period. These changes are so rapid that they will significantly reduce the buffering capacity of the natural processes that have moderated changes in ocean chemistry over most of geological time." [Quoted from, p.39]

And plenty more at the link.

related material
anthropogenic global warming, and ocean acidity
global warming

the web address for the article above is

nothing wrong with global warming [.pdf]

"The fact that sources of PM2.5 match those of sulfur implies that most of the pollution comes from coal. Worldwide, air pollution kills over three million people per year-more than AIDS, malaria, diabetes or tuberculosis.

"Air pollution is the greatest environmental disaster in the world today,” says Richard Muller, Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, coauthor of the paper.  “When I was last in Beijing, pollution was at the hazardous level; every hour of exposure reduced my life expectancy by 20 minutes. It’s as if every man, women, and child smoked 1.5 cigarettes each hour,” he said."

Detailed report. [.pdf]

related material
fossil fuels are a dirty business
fossil fuel disasters
how atmospheric chemistry and physics effects global warming

the web address for the article above is

pope francis: look after sister earth

Laudato si' - Francis' encyclical 'on the care for our common home'

1. “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”.[1]

2. This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive life and refreshment from her waters."

Generally, what Francis is saying is not bad, but it could be better in places.

For instance, in the first part, global warming is tackled, but this tackling is let down by a lack of scientific knowledge.

And here is a reasonable and thoughtful critique.

"Though he criticised water privatisation, nowhere in the document did the Pope mention fossil fuel energy subsidies – in other words, the policy of paying people to emit greenhouses gases. As The Economist put it: “It would be hard to find a worse [mistake] than energy subsidies. Recent research has shown that they enrich middlemen, depress economic output and help the rich, who use lots of energy, more than they do the poor… But now a new working paper by the International Monetary Fund highlights another cost too: damage to the environment. Including this, the authors reckon that the total drag on the global economy caused by fuel subsidies now amounts to a stonking $5.3 trillion each year…Poorer countries dole out the largest amount of subsidies; some spend up to 18 per cent of their GDP a year on them.”

"There is much to debate, but that is not the impression given in the document. Nowhere is it recognised that the models of development that are criticised have led to rapidly falling rates of poverty, global inequality and deaths from natural disasters whilst access to education and healthcare has improved. Furthermore, nowhere is it acknowledged that the natural resource intensity of production falls dramatically as countries develop. The carbon intensity of production falls; we stop using whales for oil; we stop plundering forests and instead nurture them; and so on. ..."

This unrealistic anti-science leaning is troubling.

the web address for the article above is

anomalous event weather modelling

Fortunately, we have'experts' assure us this is nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.

Weather models are being made by comparing statistical historic data against recent anomalous weather events, with and without changes in anthropogenic greenhouse gases [GHGs].

It is being found that the anomalous events are statistically very unlikely without the added GHGs.

"The impacts of the drought are wide-ranging, and continue to intensify with each passing month. Curtailment of state and federal water project deliveries for agricultural irrigation have already resulted multi-billion dollar losses as thousands of acres of farmland are fallowed. Small communities in some regions have started to run out of water entirely, and increasingly stringent urban conservation measures have been enacted over the summer as reservoir storage drops to critically low levels. Thousands of new water wells have been constructed on an emergency basis over the past year, and skyrocketing rates of groundwater pumping have led to rapid land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley. Not to be outdone, snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains was almost nonexistent for much of 2013-2014, and at least one of California’s major rivers is no longer reaching the Pacific Ocean."

"In addition to extremely low precipitation, California has also been experiencing exceptional warmth over much of the past year. 2014 is currently California’s record warmest year to date by a wide margin—meaning that it has been warmer during the current drought than during any previous drought since at least the 1800s. Warm temperatures increase the rate of evaporation from parched soils and critically dry rivers, lakes, and streams—exacerbating the impacts of existing precipitation deficits. In fact, primary metrics of overall drought severity—including the widely-used Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)—have now reached their lowest levels since at least the 1800s." [Quoted from]

Marker at

"All five research groups came to the conclusion that last year’s heat waves could not have been as severe without the long-term climatic warming caused by human emissions.

" “When we look at the heat across the whole of Australia and the whole 12 months of 2013, we can say that this was virtually impossible without climate change,” said David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne who led some of the research." [Quoted from]

Marker at

'Global cooling' shown as atemporary blip in overall global warming. Image: Keenleyside et al.
‘Global cooling’ shown as a temporary blip in overall global warming. Image: Keenleyside et al.

Recently, I have seen several reports suggesting that La Niña will cause a hiatus in the rises of global temperatures [black line]. However, if you look at the longer-term temperature predictions, you will see that the hiatus [green line] returns to trend line over a few years. In other words, it is not a slowing in global temperature rise, but merely an artefact of the way in which that particular temperature average is being calculated. Note, our measuring sophistication is growing rapidly, as are our technical means of obtaining local temperature samples (in this case, a sample means a single measurement). We now have satellites, ever-improving instrumentation and the means to put sensors in remote places.

related material
anthropogenic global warming, and ocean acidity
global warming
gathering data to test global warming

the web address for the article above is

You are here: ecology news from October 2014 < News < Home

latest abstracts briefings information   hearing damage memory France zone

email abelard email email_abelard [at]

© abelard, 2014, 1 october
all rights reserved

variable words
prints as increasing A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)