Talk:Transient climate simulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many thanks for doing this as requested.

Would it be an idea to include something like this pic:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/fig9-1s.gif

Additionally/alternatively, can or should it be stated more explicitly that:

 Equilibrium warming = Transient warming plus Committed warming

crandles 21:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is true, in a sense. Its perhaps the wrong thing to focus on. For example: it assumes that although the path may be different the final state will be the same if you suddenly double CO2 or if you ramp it up slowly. I happen to think thats usually true; it might not be true for halving CO2. William M. Connolley 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

OK thanks. You're the expert :) crandles 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You are the expert but ..... are you confusing me with something irrelevant. Ok so the equilibrium level could depend on the path to get there which means the 'equilibrium level' isn't really a true equilibrium. But is this relevant? In my suggested equilibrium warming=transient warming+committed warming, doesn't the equilibrium warming part refer to the equilibrium level reached after the exact same forcings are applied in the transient stage and followed by a long period of no changes in forcings? crandles 14:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. OK, so: if you want to be strict about it, then "equilibrium cl ch" is a simple jump to a new forcing level and then equilibriating at this level. So it *does* have a unique defined path, if you need to insist on it. At least, it has a uniquely defined GHG forcing path; although if climate really were unstable this wouldn't be enough because weather noise could then force it off down another path. Implicitly the assumption (bourne out in all the model runs) is that this isn't so, so perhaps my objection is unreasonable. Whereas in the transient run the forcings can take a different path. You could say that, at any given point in the simulation, the equilibrium warming (stabalising at that value of CO2) is equal to the transient warming (to that point) plus the "committed warming". Essentially that *defines* the committed warming I guess. William M. Connolley 15:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Use of this definition

This has found its way to

http://boinc-doc.net/boinc-wiki/index.php?title=Transient_Coupled_Model

Thanks again for the help. crandles 16:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Found its way"? I think it had help... But I'm confused. What is Boinc? Going to the main page did not enlighten me!

Ouch that isn't good. There is a sentence saying:

Now you can participate in scientific research! If you own a computer (Microsoft Windows®, MacIntosh, Linux or Unix) you can help scientific research projects in many areas.

So it is an open source software platform to allow distributed computing projects like SETI@home and climateprediction.net which use voluteered computer resources to run. It is rather idealistic stuff but why leave a computer idle if it can be put to some beneficial use?

There are lots of synergies both for making it easier for projects to set themselves up and for participants (when 1 system is down others will be running so computer cycles don't do to waste). BOINC stands for Berkerly Open Infrastructure for Network Computing. There is an overview on the official webpage here.

Now what do I want on the front page? Most people going to that wiki have at least tried to start one of the distributed computing projects so I suppose there is some justification for the explanation of what BOINC is on the front page being rather limited. Hmm. {goes offto think some more} crandles 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should say "BOINC is a system for X blah wibble that works by Y" (about 1 para's worth). Then it should say "This wiki describes the BOINC system/is used by BOINC people to maintain their projects/contains pages useful to BOINC people" or somesuch! William M. Connolley 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. Is the new version [1] better? crandles 14:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats much better, from the POV of someone who comes to it fresh. William M. Connolley 15:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC).