Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » “Global Cooling” Link on Ornery.org Revealed As Fraud – Detailed Pr (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: “Global Cooling” Link on Ornery.org Revealed As Fraud – Detailed Pr
Koner
Member
Member # 1390

 - posted      Profile for Koner   Email Koner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its 15 degrees outside today and the snow is 2 feet deep. I'll believe in global warming when there is a palm tree in my back yard.
Posts: 754 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Koner:
Its 15 degrees outside today and the snow is 2 feet deep. I'll believe in global warming when there is a palm tree in my back yard.

Might be a little late at that point. Sorry you are cold [Smile]
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
you mean giants...

Sancho Panza! My lance!

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TomD,

you do make an interesting inference - would be interesting to have OrneryMod check the IPs of the bumpers [Smile]

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Koner
Member
Member # 1390

 - posted      Profile for Koner   Email Koner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oops sorry. I didn't look at the date. this is an OLD topic. LOL who bumped it up?
Posts: 754 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bryan Erickson
Member
Member # 1135

 - posted      Profile for Bryan Erickson   Email Bryan Erickson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Our old friend Amy Ridenour is in the news again, in this piece entitled "Think Tanks for Sale: Amy Ridenour, Abramoff Fellow".

Let the record show, I was exposing Ridenour before it was cool. [Wink]

jadeitejewel, I couldn't agree more with everything you wrote - but you seemed to take my mention of voting history in my letter to Ridenour as evidence of entanglement of politics with science, which is precisely what I am trying to criticize, as the thread makes clear. Quite the contrary, I mentioned that to try to make the point that despite what she and I did have in common, my politics did not influence my investigation of scientific truth, whereas her characterization of science is apparently determined from the beginning by her political axioms. Sadly that kind of thinking has been institutionalized by today's Republican party, which has now firmly entrenched itself as the party of anti-science.

What I don't understand is why Card still graces the front page of this website with the caption, "It looks like the global warming doubters may have the facts on their side", to link to Ridenour's blurb, when consulting the sources I listed plainly shows that Ridenour's blurb is a ludicrous parody of the only actual research on which it claims to be based. Or better yet, why he still writes about global warming as if it were a PC conspiracy, though he has never over the years been able to come up with a better reference to support that idea. Many of the Washington Post's investigative articles on Abramoff have previously noted Ridenour's shady role as an empty propagandist and as a slush financier for Abramoff's massive fraud machine; and now we have this material from Slate. How many more revelations do we need that Card's only cited authority for the purported baselessness of global warming is nothing but a well-kept tool for fraud, before he decides to have a fresh look at the objective evidence?

Bryan Erickson

Posts: 68 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say it'll happen when hell freezes over, but if hell froze over Card would talk about how its proof that global warming was wrong [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The global warming article on the cover of this week's Time scared the hell out of me. Apparently many symptoms of global warming are getting worse much faster than people thought they would, because it turns out that once it gets hot enough certain ecosystems get caught in a feedback loop that makes the heat increase faster and faster. (For instance, as glaciers melt, the nearby temperature increases because ocean water stores much more heat than ice, which causes glaciers to melt faster, which causes ...)

I'd like to see OSC do another column on global warming soon, since he was definitely one of the people that encouraged me not to worry too much about it.

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, OSC is unlikely to revisit his stance on global warming, because he often does not gather further information on subjects once he has formed an opinion on them.

At least, that seems to be the pattern in his ID stance, where he apparently read Behe's book years ago and showed no signs of having read any criticism of it since.

I suspect any article on global warming would be the same--reheated arguments from years ago, without even a nod to acknowledge any new data.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just did a Google Image search for Amy Ridenour, and man! I didn't know someone so slick could be so ugly.
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lanik
Member
Member # 386

 - posted      Profile for lanik     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would just like to jump in with a couple of comments. First, I know Amy. She's a saint of a woman and is as honest as the day is long.

Second, the article is clearly a bit of a spoof. It's written in the same breathless style as the pro-global warming articles we read over and over again in the mainstream press, which cites all kinds of regional weather occurrences, some record-setting temperature in some random part of the world, a hurricane, a tornado, a heavy rainfall, etc., as proof-positive of catastrophic global warming.

To the best of my knowledge Amy has never denied that the Earth is warming, though it is my own personal opinion that we simply don't know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or doing nothing at all. We simply do not have the measurement systems in place to make such a bold pronouncement. It's basically a statement of faith, not science.

Given the above, I think Mr. Erickson is making much ado about nothing.

Posts: 11 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, isn't Bryan usually the one to bump this thread?

BTW, Ianik, if that's the case, Amy really needs to work on her spoofing talents, 'cause they even (seemingly) fooled Mr. card, our host with the posts [Smile]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also let Amy know she needs to work on using original sources.

Her article is filled with secondary sources, and ones that were disputed when they were written, too (such as Joseph Perkins, whose editorials received letters telling him that he misinterpreted the results of the studies--by the authors of the studies!)

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" though it is my own personal opinion that we simply don't know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or doing nothing at all. We simply do not have the measurement systems in place to make such a bold pronouncement. It's basically a statement of faith, not science."

Well, no. There's a whole slew of data that the earth is warming, and most of it corrects for known problems. That means its a statement of science to say that the earth is warming.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Global warming is probably occuring right now. I say "probably" because there is so much misinformation being spread about it right now that its damn near impossible to seperate the hyperbole from the facts. The famous "Hockey Stick" graph created by Dr. Michael Mann and released by the IPCC in 1995 (you know, the one that shows a rapid spike in the last few decades) has been widely discredited due to a significantly flawed methodology in the statistical analysis of the results. I think there are also some issues with his correlation of tree rings to surface temperatures that create rather significant issues for the data he used. We have no idea what factors may only correlate to temperature fluctuations, cause them or are merely coincidental.

There is, as of right now, scant evidence that global warming is caused by human activity. Using paleoclimate data for the last 500 million years Veizer et al. (2000, Nature 408, pp. 698-701) concluded that long-term temperature variations are only weakly related to carbon dioxide variations. The planet was both warmer and cooler than today before humans began to populate the earth. CO2 levels have also been higher and lower as well with little relation to global temperature. The last report I've seen came from the IPCC where they found that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere. Man-made emissions create only about 5 to 6 billion tons per year; that's less that 5% of all atmospheric CO2. With the relatively insignificant amount humans are pumping into the atmosphere, I find it hard to accept that we are solely responsible for global warming or that there is anything we can do to mitigate it.

Global warming computer models are error prone because they are trying to model something that is still poorly understood. Most models do not account for the effects of planetary phenomena such cloud cover, hurricanes, etc. which will have an effect, nobody really knows how much though.

Solar variation is routinely underestimated in these models as well (although I think that's changing) and is currently thought to account for somewhere between 16% and 36% of global temperature fluctations. Given that we are at a peak in the solar cycle, these underestimates could be significant. The solar cycle is at it's peak now (or just past it) if it continues to follow previous cyclic patterns. Perhaps in a few years, we'll begin hearing about global cooling again as we did in the early 1970's?

Most paleoclimatologists believe other factors, such as continental drift and mountain building have very long term effects on the climate. However, Shaviv and Veizer (research here ) proposed that the biggest long-term influence on temperature is actually the solar system's motion around the galaxy and the ways in which this influences the atmosphere by altering the flux of cosmic rays received by the earth. I think these particular fluctuations occur on geologic time scales though so they may not reflect on the last few thousand years but we, as yet, have no handle on the role they actually do play.

[ July 21, 2006, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" The famous "Hockey Stick" graph created by Dr. Michael Mann and released by the IPCC in 1995 (you know, the one that shows a rapid spike in the last few decades) has been widely discredited due to a significantly flawed methodology"

No it hasn't. The national academy of science, after reviewing the data and methodology, basically endorse the graph.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/

"significantly flawed methodology"

Again according to the NAS, "signficantly" in this case means "not enough to effect the graph in meaningful way, post 1600 CE."

More coming on this.

[ July 21, 2006, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Following the links you provide, it's not exactly a vote of confidence by the national academy of science.
quote:
In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph.
More-or-less? What does that mean?
quote:
"...the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
The IPCC uses probability terms like 'likely' (66-90% probable) and 'medium likelihood' (33-66% probable) with plausible maybe coming in somewhere around 'likely' - meaning slightly better than even odds of being accurate. I say probably because there is no correlation between IPCC probablity terms and NAS probability terms. The discussion on the article at RealClimate says 'plausible' ranks up there with 'likely'. I think that's generous since plausible seems so vague.

I suppose it is plausible that everything Mann came up with is accurate. Could it also be plausible that his conclusions were wrong?

A lot of things are plausible, more-or-less, I can't come to any conclusions based on 'plausible'.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, here is the repsonse by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (who initially criticized the 'hockey stick' graph by Mann.
quote:

At the NAS panel, we said that Mann's principal components were biased toward producing hockey stick-shaped series; the NAS agreed. We said that bristlecones were not a reliable temperature proxy; the NAS agreed and said they should be "avoided." We said that Mann's reconstruction failed important verification tests; the NAS agreed. We said that more than one test statistic should be reported when assessing statistical validity; the NAS agreed. We said that current methods underestimated the inherent uncertainty; the NAS agreed. On and on. On no occasion was any claim of ours refuted.

Our original articles argued that Mann's data and methodology did not permit him to claim with confidence that 1998 was the "warmest year" of the millennium or that the 1990s were the warmest decade. The NAS panel even agreed with this. After observing that little confidence could be placed in reconstructions before 1600, they stated: Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium ..."

Based on some other studies, they conceded that Mann's reconstruction was still "plausible" but, contrary to the IPCC, they said it was impossible to put confidence intervals on this opinion.

"On no occasion was any claim of ours [McIntyre and McKitrick] refuted." I have to wonder how none of the claims critical of Mann's methodologies and conclusions were refuted and still the NAS found Mann's results 'plausible'.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"There is, as of right now, scant evidence that global warming is caused by human activity"

http://darwin.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=94

Chapter ten of the NAS report details the forcings for warming. Its particularly worth reading pages 102-103.

I think its a mischaracterization to say there is "Scant evidence that global warming is caused by human activity." Rather, it should be "There is scant evidence that global warming is not contributed to by human activity,"

In addition to the NAS report,

http://spotlight.siu.edu/08032005/Globalwarmingstudy.html

http://www.polymath-systems.com/pubpol/globwarm.html

One of the interesting things pointed out on the polymath site is that all the natural cycling factors pointed out by Landscheidt in his paper claiming that humans don't contribute to warming, especially solar variations, the correlation between those cycles and warming break down over the last two deconds. I.E, they don't explain climate variation after the most significant build-ups of warming gases. This goes hand in hand with the growing consensus that we are reaching a "tipping point" in the warming vs gases graph. The idea is that as the atmosphere changes, we reach a point in the warming trend where the natural cycles of the earth are disrupted significantly. Think of an exponential curve... at a certain point, the curve explodes.

Particularly dealing with the Veizer research, from 2005

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153

Again more coming

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of the reasons the NAS panel found Mann's conclusions to still be plausible is that they found it to be only one of many chains of research leading to the same conclusion.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
One of the reasons the NAS panel found Mann's conclusions to still be plausible is that they found it to be only one of many chains of research leading to the same conclusion.

So despite agreeing with everything McIntyre and McKitrick proved about Mann's hockey stick graph (i.e. fatally flawed statistical analysis, poor data collection sources, failure of vital verification tests, etc.) the National Academy of Science agreed with Mann's conclusions and gave a stamp of approval to the work that resulted in the graph because there are other areas of research leading to the same conclusion. This is known as " consensus science" and is little more than a variation of the logical fallacy appeal to the majority. It's a very dangerous and poor way to conduct science.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So despite agreeing with everything McIntyre and McKitrick proved about Mann's hockey stick graph (i.e. fatally flawed statistical analysis, poor data collection sources, failure of vital verification tests, etc.) the National Academy of Science agreed with Mann's conclusions and gave a stamp of approval to the work that resulted in the graph because there are other areas of research leading to the same conclusion."

No.
a) They did not agree the statistical analysis was fatally flawed. The conclusion they reached vis a vis Mcintyre's contention about the analysis was that choices had to be made and the choices mann made were not optimum, but at the time the choices were made they were reasonable, and the analysis only alters the conclusions in minimal ways.
b)The academy did not agree the data collection sources were bad,
c) etc

McIntyre in the link you posted says what he thinks happened during deliberations, but its not what shows up in any reports put out by the IPCC or the NAS.


" This is known as " consensus science" and is little more than a variation of the logical fallacy appeal to the majority."

No. What the NAS is saying is that the conclusions reached by Mann are reached in a variety of ways, thus his conclusions are stronger then if they had only been reached via one method. This is not "consensus science". A conclusion is always stronger if its reached in multiple ways then if its only reached in one way.

[ July 24, 2006, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:


No.
a) They did not agree the statistical analysis was fatally flawed. The conclusion they reached vis a vis Mcintyre's contention about the analysis was that choices had to be made and the choices mann made were not optimum, but at the time the choices were made they were reasonable, and the analysis only alters the conclusions in minimal ways.
b)The academy did not agree the data collection sources were bad,
c) etc

a) From the article: "At the NAS panel, we said that Mann's principal components were biased toward producing hockey stick-shaped series; the NAS agreed." McIntyre and McKitrick showed that even random data produces the hockey stick graph when Mann's alogorithm is applied to it.

b) From the article: "We said that bristlecones were not a reliable temperature proxy; the NAS agreed and said they should be 'avoided.'" Using an unreliable data source is bad data collection.

c) From the article: "On no occasion was any claim of ours refuted."

quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
McIntyre in the link you posted says what he thinks happened during deliberations, but its not what shows up in any reports put out by the IPCC or the NAS.

What McIntyre and McKitrick wrote is "At the panel ..." implying they had some interaction with the panel. They clearly claim that the panel agreed with McIntyre's and McKitrick's critiques of Mann's work. If you have something you can point to that indicates they're falsifying this, I'd be interested in seeing it. If you don't, I will accept McIntyre's and McKitrick's report - as well as anyone else should.
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
What the NAS is saying is that the conclusions reached by Mann are reached in a variety of ways, thus his conclusions are stronger then if they had only been reached via one method. This is not "consensus science"

The NAS is saying is that the conclusions reached by Mann are valid despite the fatal flaws only because similar conclusions are reached by others whose theories are believed correct. In other words, the prevailing wisdom is that Mann should be correct, therefore he is despite the significant shortcomings in his research. This is consensus science.

That the hockey stick graph by Mann is invalid (the NAS panel said it was impossible to put confidence intervals on Mann's results - how does a statistical ananlysis not have confidence intervals?) does not invalidate that global warming is occuring. It only proves that Mann was out to get evidence to fit his theory instead of letting the evidence refine (or even disprove) his theory.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although I have not read this link (I don't have time to get deeply into global warming right now), it should add some fire to the debate. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a little more to confuse the global warming faithful. One of the bigger claims is that global warming is causing a rise is sea surface temperatures which will, in turn, result in larger and more devastating hurricanes. I believe this is one of the major points in Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" (I read that in a review, perhaps someone that has seen it can verify it for me).

The problem with the theory is that it's falling apart this year. For tropical storms, this year (statistically speaking) is just below normal. We should have seen an average of 1.5 hurricanes by now but we've seen none. Current predictions are that there will be only 12 to 15 named storms by December, only half of what we saw last year. Based on what we're seeing now, things are really going to have to pick up to hit even those reduced numbers.

Why is this happening? Part of it is because tropical western Atlantic sea surface temperatures are running about normal, if not slightly below normal. But that's not all, in a research paper being published next month in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists will show that between 2003 and 2005, globally averaged temperatures in the upper ocean cooled rather dramatically, effectively erasing 20% of the warming that occurred over the previous 48 years. That's a global decline, not just western Atlantic.

Here's another part of the story, the atmosphere is more stable because of clouds of Saharan dust that have swept across the Atlantic. I wonder how many computer models predicting hurricanes (or global warming for that matter) this year took Saharan dust into account?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
FJIC, you dont need to make any rude comments.

Read: just another 4-letter word?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Climate trends are in principle impossible to determine in the present; we can only know what happened fifty years later. In fairly recent history we had a warm spell around the near 900, when the Vikings reached North America, and a cold one about the time of Henry VIII - has anyone theorized that the Little Ice Age was why he needed six wives? Anyway the explosion of Tambora in 1815 made 1816 the year without a summer, in which an unfortunate in I believe Rhode Island froze to death in a blizzard on the 4th of July. But that year, and probably several after, were a glitch in a general warming trend which has endured to the present.

So we never can know. The cooling you report is probably just a wiggle, but it may be the beginning of a new ice age. Wait fifty years and see. What is clear is that we have released huge volumes of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, which should tend to make the planet warmer. But other things may be going on as well.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Camp
Member
Member # 192

 - posted      Profile for Jon Camp   Email Jon Camp   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Source with some interesting comments (scroll down)

quote:
A very important new Geophysical Research Letters Paper has been accepted for publication. It is entitled “Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean” by J.M. Lyman, J.K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson.

...

The Climate Science weblog will discuss the importance of this paper in more detail in a later weblog. However, the reported over 20% loss of upper ocean heat content between 2003 and 2005, which had accumulated between 1955 and 2003, is a very important observational finding. According to the paper, this cooling corresponds to -1.0 (+/- 0.3) W/meter squared global radiative imbalance over this time period.

This is a significant observation, which has important climate science implications as has been discussed in the Climate Science weblog of August 8, 2006. None of the multi-decadal global climate models predicted such a cooling.

The explanation of the cooling will be the focus intense research (and speculation) in the coming months.

(emphasis mine)

Yes -- NONE of the global climate model predicted this cooling. Not. One.

But we're supposed to accept on faith that these models can accurately predict events 20, 50, or 100 years out?

Edit to add: Here's a PDF Document of the draft of the paper.

[ August 21, 2006, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Jon Camp ]

Posts: 782 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Camp:

But we're supposed to accept on faith that these models can accurately predict events 20, 50, or 100 years out?

[/QB]

Yes, as long as they support what you want people to believe [Smile]
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, what effect are global anomolies having? And can we count on global anomolies to continue to happen in such a way as to offset the extra heat we are keeping in the atmosphere?

If the cooling in the upper regions of the atlantic ocean is really because of large quantities of excess dust in the atmosphere blocking out heat from reaching the ocean, that doesn't tell us that other forcings in the climate models are wrong... it tells us that a forcing was left out.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And perhaps even more forcing were left out, making the whole model suspect? No duh.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The model might be wrong, (although several climate models have been pretty darn accurate over the last 15 years) but the whole model isn't suspect if the models use correct forcings. Just the predictions won't be accurate, which is different then saying the model is suspect. But I think the question is really "are humans causing the climate to change in ways that might be very destructive." The first part of that is a forcing, and the second part of it is in part going to be dependent on freak things happening.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Well, what effect are global anomolies having? And can we count on global anomolies to continue to happen in such a way as to offset the extra heat we are keeping in the atmosphere?

Good questions, I don't think anyone, anywhere has those answers yet. Can we even call these anomolies? How often over the past 1000 years has Saharan dust affected tropical storm formation? how often have the oceans cooled so dramatically over the last millenia? I would be astonished if anyone has accurate data on the first and mildly suprised on the latter.
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

If the cooling in the upper regions of the atlantic ocean is really because of large quantities of excess dust in the atmosphere blocking out heat from reaching the ocean, that doesn't tell us that other forcings in the climate models are wrong... it tells us that a forcing was left out.

I don't think the dust caused the ocean cooling but was responsible for the atmospheric stability that has inhibited storm formation this hurricane season. If significant factors like these are left out, then the models are not correct.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
The model might be wrong, (although several climate models have been pretty darn accurate over the last 15 years) but the whole model isn't suspect if the models use correct forcings. Just the predictions won't be accurate, which is different then saying the model is suspect. But I think the question is really "are humans causing the climate to change in ways that might be very destructive." The first part of that is a forcing, and the second part of it is in part going to be dependent on freak things happening.

I don't have the answer. I'd rather be safe then sorry. But surely you see that when the predictions fail, then people are going to view the conclusions with even greater skepticism, and it's going to make people less interested in pursuing expensive solutions?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't think the dust caused the ocean cooling but was responsible for the atmospheric stability that has inhibited storm formation this hurricane season."

Dust in the atmosphere does have a known cooling effect on the planet.

We'll likely never be able to predict very far in advance when big volcanic explosions will happen, nor other anomolies, and by anomoly here, I mean something that happens regularly but not periodically, and with less frequency then once a decade. These sorts of events are always going to screw up climate models, because they have an effect on climate, but can't be put into a model because it would only be guesswork.

What we can do is try to understand the predictable forcings, insert some anomolous events that are likely to happen, and look at the predicted results.

If we are getting fewer hurricanes this year because of extra dust in the atmosphere, thats good. Its also good if its offsetting some of the warming that is taking place in the oceans. Stable ocean temperatures are fun for everyone. But if the long term forcings are still towards continual growth in surface ocean temperatures, that will mean more storms of a severe nature, and we shouldn't ignore that because we get lucky with anomolous events that effect the earth's atmosphere.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" But surely you see that when the predictions fail, then people are going to view the conclusions with even greater skepticism, and it's going to make people less interested in pursuing expensive solutions?"

Yup, and its my job as a scientist to understand and explain why the predictions failed. And if the explanation is "Well, we got lucky," to try to make other people understand that even if the results of the model do not match the results in nature, that the basic nature of the model is still correct.

If we really do come across evidence that the models are systematically wrong, then its also my job to communicate that.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
" But surely you see that when the predictions fail, then people are going to view the conclusions with even greater skepticism, and it's going to make people less interested in pursuing expensive solutions?"

Yup, and its my job as a scientist to understand and explain why the predictions failed. And if the explanation is "Well, we got lucky," to try to make other people understand that even if the results of the model do not match the results in nature, that the basic nature of the model is still correct.

If we really do come across evidence that the models are systematically wrong, then its also my job to communicate that.

Well done, then. [Smile] I assume, by the way, that this will end up effecting the predictions in the model, and that the model will be updated, right?

[ August 21, 2006, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would assume so, if the dust really is doing something. The more accurate models tend to randomly put in volcanic erruptions and such.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev, at what point does the selection of the forcings input into the model to "predict" past conditions leave the realm of purely predictive and go into "creating" the results you already know?

For example, we know (reasonably well) what the weather was in the Fifties. I assume the programing used to predict the future are fine tuned to determine how well it predicted the past. But with a near infinite number of variables, or forcings (I assume), how do we know that we are no longer selecting variables by their predictive nature and just trying to get the right results from the Fifties?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We know very specifically what a lot of different forcings do. Models are generally created using the factors that we know exist, not based on past results, but on what we know about how those factors interact within the climate system. For example, some of the good models have volcanic erruptions in them, because we know that an erruption of sufficient size creates a cooling effect by reflecting solar energy that would otherwise enter the system. We more or less know how this works, so when volcanic erruptions appear in models, we can accurately predict what the effect will be.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1