
From Brown University:
Statistical physics offers an approach to studying climate change that could dramatically reduce the time and brute-force computing that current simulation techniques require. The new approach focuses on fundamental forces that drive climate rather than on “following every little swirl” of water or air. And yes, there’s an app for that.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — Scientists are using ever more complex models running on ever more powerful computers to simulate the earth’s climate. But new research suggests that basic physics could offer a simpler and more meaningful way to model key elements of climate.
The research, published in the journal Physical Review Letters, shows that a technique called direct statistical simulation does a good job of modeling fluid jets, fast-moving flows that form naturally in oceans and in the atmosphere. Brad Marston, professor of physics at Brown University and one of the authors of the paper, says the findings are a key step toward bringing powerful statistical models rooted in basic physics to bear on climate science.
In addition to the Physical Review Letters paper, Marston will report on the work at a meeting of the American Physical Society to be held in Baltimore this later month.
The method of simulation used in climate science now is useful but cumbersome, Marston said. The method, known as direct numerical simulation, amounts to taking a modified weather model and running it through long periods of time. Moment-to-moment weather — rainfall, temperatures, wind speeds at a given moment, and other variables — is averaged over time to arrive at the climate statistics of interest. Because the simulations need to account for every weather event along the way, they are mind-bogglingly complex, take a long time run, and require the world’s most powerful computers.
One practical advantage of the new approach: the ability to model climate conditions from millions of years ago without having to reconstruct the world’s entire weather history.Direct statistical simulation, on the other hand, is a new way of looking at climate. “The approach we’re investigating,” Marston said, “is the idea that one can directly find the statistics without having to do these lengthy time integrations.”
It’s a bit like the approach physicists use to describe the behavior of gases.
“Say you wanted to describe the air in a room,” Marston said. “One way to do it would be to run a giant supercomputer simulation of all the positions of all of the molecules bouncing off of each other. But another way would be to develop statistical mechanics and find that the gas actually obeys simple laws you can write down on a piece of paper: PV=nRT, the gas equation. That’s a much more useful description, and that’s the approach we’re trying to take with the climate.”
Conceptually, the technique focuses attention on fundamental forces driving climate, instead of “following every little swirl,” Marston said. A practical advantage would be the ability to model climate conditions from millions of years ago without having to reconstruct the world’s entire weather history in the process.
The theoretical basis for direct statistical simulation has been around for nearly 50 years. The problem, however, is that the mathematical and computational tools to apply the idea to climate systems aren’t fully developed. That is what Marston and his collaborators have been working on for the last few years, and the results in this new paper show their techniques have good potential.
The paper, which Marston wrote with University of Leeds mathematician Steve Tobias, investigates whether direct statistical simulation is useful in describing the formation and characteristics of fluid jets, narrow bands of fast-moving fluid that move in one direction. Jets form naturally in all kinds of moving fluids, including atmospheres and oceans. On Earth, atmospheric jet streams are major drivers of storm tracks.
For their study, Marston and Tobias simulated the jets that form as a fluid moves on a hypothetical spinning sphere. They modeled the fluid using both the traditional numerical technique and their statistical technique, and then compared the output of the two models. They found that the models generally arrived at similar values for the number of jets that would form and the strength of the airflow, demonstrating that statistical simulation can indeed be used to model jets.
There were limits, however, to what the statistical model could do. The study found that as pace of adding and removing energy to the fluid system increased, the statistical model started to break down. Marston and Tobias are currently working on an expansion of their technique to deal with that problem.
Despite the limitation, Marston is upbeat about the potential for the technique. “We’re very pleased that it works as well as it did here,” he said.
Since completing the study, Marston has integrated the method into a computer program called “GCM” that he has made easily available via Apple’s Mac App Store for other researchers to download. The program allows users to build their own simulations, comparing numerical and statistical models. Marston expects that researchers who are interested in this field will download it and play with the technique on their own, providing new insights along the way. “I’m hoping that citizen-scientists will also explore climate modeling with it as well, and perhaps make a discovery or two,” he said.
There’s much more work to be done on this, Marston stresses, both in solving the energy problem and in scaling the technique to model more realistic climate systems. At this point, the simulations have only been applied to hypothetical atmospheres with one or two layers. The Earth’s atmosphere is a bit more complex than that.
“The research is at a very early stage,” Marston said, “but it’s picking up steam.”
###
Direct Statistical Simulation of Out-of-Equilibrium Jets
S.M. Tobias and J.B. Marston
We present direct statistical simulation of jet formation on a β plane, solving for the statistics of a fluid flow via an expansion in cumulants. Here we compare an expansion truncated at second order (CE2) to statistics accumulated by direct numerical simulations. We show that, for jets near equilibrium, CE2 is capable of reproducing the jet structure (although some differences remain in the second cumulant). However, as the degree of departure from equilibrium is increased (as measured by the zonostrophy parameter), the jets meander more and CE2 becomes less accurate. We discuss a possible remedy by inclusion of higher cumulants.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 104502 (2013) The paper is available for download at Arxiv.org PDF
Dr. Judith Curry also has a discussion of this at Climate Etc.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Physics is exactly what’s required to put climate science on a firm footing. The relevant quote is from NZ’s own Ernest Rutherford: “all science is either physics or stamp collecting”, although at that time (1902) there was no climate science — else he might have added a less complimentary third adjunct. All physicists are fully qualified to evaluate climate models — mind you, the climateers will hotly dispute that because physicists are by and large a very skeptical group!
Sure statistical modeling is a much simpler way to go. It takes a whole lot less CPU cycles that direct simulation, it’s simpler to develop & code, it is easier to debug, it is much less subject to programming errors, etc., etc. However, you can’t model a system you don’t thoroughly understand, either with statistical modeling or direct simulation. Computers don’t think for them selves… they’re nothing but big fast adding machines.
I don’t think anyone currently knows enough about the oceans, atmosphere and climate to make accurate models using either of the above approaches work.
A climate model based on physics?
Words fail me.
About ****ing time.
hoffer. Its been happening for a long time
spend some time watching. best hour you will spend
http://www.newton.ac.uk/programmes/CLP/seminars/2010082310001.html
Replacing horsepower with mind power? This looks promising from the basic premesis.
…Brad Marston, professor of physics at Brown University.
Hmmm, gotta admire this man:
Speaking of Climate Models. If you can’t model ENSO with any precision you cannot predict the future state of our atmosphere. The feeling I get from this article is that we have a great understanding of Climate; it’s only a lack of a decent computer system that holds us back. If it was only that easy. Just when you think you have ENSO figured out, she pulls a fast one.
There are certain things that can be calculated easily using physics principles instead of doing really complicated things. For example, if we have a bag of sand on a frictionless rail and fire a bullet into it, we can find the resultant velocity of the bag if we know the mass of the bullet and its speed before entry as well as the mass of the bag of sand. We do not need to analyze billions of collisions between the bullet and a huge number of sand particles. Of course weather is much more complex! It will be interesting to see if things can be simplified and made more accurate in the process.
Sure. And the physics of carbon dioxide is “well known” and can be calculated into statistical modeling (and we have heard that before). There are many examples of garbage physics in our history. This is no different. I have no positive things to say about this research. It appears to be same old same old on the inside, just new wrapping.
Call me a cynic but the basic problem will still exist – garbage in, garbage out.
Applying physics to climate ‘science’ eh?
A novel idea.
I doubt it will prove very popular amongst people who, for example, did biology to avoid doing physics. Or people who struggle with maths and don’t know how to get Excel to make a graph…
they are mind-bogglingly complex, take a long time run, and require the world’s most powerful computers
42 (sorry, it’s Friday night) :0
This all seems something of a waste of time at least until we actually understand all of the cycles at work in the process — including the external factors like the solar cycles.
physics…..
We have chemical biology….so why not biological physics….
earth’s climate….climate change…..climate statistics……climate systems
They’ve used so many different words…what are they really doing here?
…are they modeling the weather….then they don’t need biology
if they are modeling man made climate change…then they do
GIGO is far less of a problem with physicists because they are trained to watch the signal-to-noise, and to know the difference. It’s an integral part of being a physicist.
davidmhoffer says:
All climate models are based on physics. The point here is that they are applying some techniques used by physicists to deal with the system on a less-detailed level, thus allowing for the possibility of more rapid calculations that still get the statistical properties of the climate right without getting bogged down in the weather “details”..
NZ Willy says:
(1) As a physicist, I don’t think that I would say that “all physicists are fully qualified to evaluate climate models”. We certainly have a good background on which to understand climate modeling and become knowledgeable about it…but there is still a lot to learn to actually become conversant in the subject. Also, in regards to the first part of your statement, I think that the notion of reductionism, i.e., that the only interesting science is physics (or, even more specifically, particle physics, is pretty well dead: Interesting phenomena emerge as the result of the collective macroscopic behavior that occurs as one looks at larger scales.
(2) Physicists may be a “skeptical” bunch in the true sense of the word, but if you mean that most physicists are generally not worried about AGW, I don’t think that is correct. The APS has issued a statement on the issue ( http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm ), major introductory physics textbooks (such as the ones that we use for both algebra- and calculus-based courses at RIT) talk briefly about it, …
By the way, I should mention that I know Brad Marston, having overlapped with him when I was a grad student and he was a postdoc…and I have the utmost respect for him. He has also played a major role in the formation of the new Topical Group on the Physics of Climate within the American Physical Society.
I hope there is something useful here .
Time will tell, at least the man is open source and challenging others to come play with this idea.
I keep hoping a real science will arise from the ruin that is climatology, but will remain cynical until the ology turns to science.
Mosher, Shore,
I did not know that.
Do I need to add sarc tags?
GIGOQ&E
GIGO quicker & easier.
“The new approach focuses on fundamental forces that drive climate…”
===================
Don’t be coy, just tell us exactly what they are.
I am puzzled as to why so much discussion goes on about the effect of CO2 on radiated heat energy from the Earth’s surface and middle atmosphere. Reference is also made to the Glass house effect.
In a glass house, the air that has been warmed by incoming radiation from the sun convects upward, this warm air is trapped mechanically by the glass roof.
The glass structure prevents winds from sweeping the heated air out of the building, replacing it with cool air.
The glass isn’t there to prevent heat radiating out of the building, but is there to keep the air in the building trapped. Any heat loss from the glass house is by conduction through the glass and some radiation.
To my knowledge a large proportion of the heat transferred to the upper atmosphere is by convection.
If you live in the tropical regions you can observe the clear skies in the morning and watch the huge clouds forming during the day followed by massive thunder storms and heavy rain late in the day.
CO2 and its overall effect on heat transfer to space is minimal and I think can be almost ignored
Water vapour is transferred to high altitude by convection, where it condenses loosing its latent heat of which a good percentage gets radiated out into space. Water in this case is a natural refrigerant, and in my opinion forms an important component of the Earth’s temperature control system. I think CO2 plays a very small role in the Earth’s temperature control.
I know that some climate scientist rely on “models”. The programs in the computers can only reflect the opinion of the programmer/s, as computers cannot think, but merely perform very rapid calculations using algorithms programmed into them by people with opinions. I feel that very often these opinions are wrong as born out by the divergence of model predicted and observed temperatures.
At a minimum, this could be useful as a double-check.
No doubt this ‘model’ is logically equivalent to the standard Climate Schmience algorithm:
def run_climate_model(required_answer=”It’s worse than we thought”):
do_complicated_looking_stuff()
return required_answer
Theoretically, it’s a good idea. Practically, a lot of work is required. The approach is widely used for finite element modeling for solid mechanics and circuit simulation for electrical engineering, and no doubt many other areas that I have no knowledge of. However, it’s successful in those areas because the physics of the simulated bodies is well understood and predictable. From what I have seen, climate physics is very much not in that club. IMHO, statistical simulation is not likely to make much progress until the underlying physics of the climate is a whole lot better understood than it is now. And, that’s just not a simulation problem.
Strictly as a layman on this, but how well does statistical physics deal with boundary conditions and external inputs? That is things like transition form ocean to land, mountain ranges, or changes in solar output?