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 » Al Gore and the carbon credits (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Al Gore and the carbon credits
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus"
quote:
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural--and not a human-induced--cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".) New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007)*

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.


Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming
68 pg PDF from United States Senator James Inhofe, (former) Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm just curious: since your assertion is that all the models are deeply flawed, how can you be so confident that we're going to continue cooling for twenty years?

I'm not relying on computer models for the idea of cooling over the next couple decades. I'm relying on the observations of Abdussamatov and others about the solar cycle as the driver for climate change and the historical trends detailed above. If history is any indicator (detailed above), and it usually is, we can count on about at 20-30 year cycle, which dovetails nicely with the solar cycle as well.

I'm not saying this is 100% reliable as global warming advocates claim for their model but I'm not asking you to significantly alter and reduce your quality of life either.

quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:
One thing I find a little entertaining about this thread is that people who work in the field don't call the phenomenon "Global Warming," and haven't for a while.

We (Well, THEY- I defected from the field) refer to it as "Climate Change," because different locations experience the phenomenon differently- some places cool, some places warm, depending on ocean currents, wind currents, particulates, etc etc etc.

That's quite the convenient way to restructure the debate isn't it? Warmer than usual? It's man made and we must change everything or we're going to destroy the planet! Colder than usual? It's man made and we must change everything or we're going to destroy the planet! Too windy? Not windy enough? Etc, etc, etc. No matter what the weather, it's man made and something must be done. It's a nice way to have everything, no matter how contradictory they are of each other, be proof of the theory.

quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:
Thing one, there are some facts. Fact one: humans are the source of large-scale C02 emissions. Fact two: an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. So, logically it would follow that we are contributing to the phenomenon.

No doubt but that doesn't mean we do so in any significant way. Another fact: I go stand in the ocean I will displace water causing ocean levels to rise. So, logically it would follow that I am contributing to global floods in coastal regions. Should we outlaw swimming in the ocean?

quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:
Thing two, a reduction in reliance on fossil fuels seems like a pretty good idea regardless, no? So policy-making and discussion could proceed without having to have a full-on consensus about the role of humans in Climate Change.

I see this being put forward more and more - it's a good idea anyway, so let's do it! This is basically a retreat on the idea of man made effects but do it instead because it's a good idea. We should outlaw swimming in the ocean on the same logic: Reducing coastal flooding seems like a pretty good idea regardless, no? So policy-making and discussion could proceed without having to have a full-on consensus about the role of humans swimming in oceans in coastal flooding.

quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:

Thing three, assuming that there are external causes, do you not then REALLY need to quit bickering about mechanisms and deal with the consequences?

I don't mind focusing on the consequences and how to mitigate those but without understanding the mechanisms, how can we really deal with the consequences of any climatological event except in the most reactive ways? It would be a grossly inefficient use of resources and may not provide anything of value (or maybe it will, who knows?) but if you want everyone to reduce their quality of life, then you have to provide more than simple doomsday scenarios.

For example, livestock is a bigger problem than humans for global warming and overall environmental impact. Livestock:
quote:
... accounts for 9 percent of carbon dioxide, 65 percent of nitrous oxide, and 37 percent of methane produced from human-related activities. Both methane (23 times) and nitrous oxide (296 times) are considerably more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Livestock also generates 64 percent of human-related ammonia, which contributes to acid rain.

"At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 per cent of pastures considered degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.

The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops."

Livestock production is expected to double by 2050 so the problem is severe and increasing drastically. If we're serious about reducing or removing green house gases from the atmosphere, shouldn't we be focused on livestock rather than fossil fuels?

Sounds like we'd have more effect by forcing everyone to become vegetarians or at least significantly reducing their meat dependence. Why not call for alternative protein sources to be found?

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jm0397:
Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus"
quote:
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural--and not a human-induced--cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.


It's not just earth and mars either. From James P Hogan is a list of links about all the planets in the solar system heating up over the the same period as the earth: here and here .
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jm0397:
Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming
68 pg PDF from United States Senator James Inhofe, (former) Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

That is an excellent paper on the current state of global warming alarmism. Further supportig my contention that global warming jumped the shark is this, from page 30 of the paper:
quote:
A Los
Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August (August 2006 - G2) found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years. (Emphasis is mine)

The paper hits everything from the science and computer models to the media treatment. Great read.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not relying on computer models for the idea of cooling over the next couple decades. I'm relying on the observations of Abdussamatov and others about the solar cycle as the driver for climate change and the historical trends detailed above.
Dude, seriously, do I need to explain to you why that's funny? Do you know what modeling is?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
quote:
Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? [Razz]
And that, too, is accurate. [Big Grin] (I could’ve sworn it was Craig not Cray. [Embarrassed] )

However, I believe I do have a slightly better idea of what is involved than you do. I have some experience with the physics going on, on how scientists usually handle these issues, and the amount of time and thought that goes into putting together simulations like the ones modeling global climate. I know that, when objections are raised (such as increase in solar output), they take a serious look at the data and try to incorporate it into their models as best they can. Because at the end of the day, climatologists don’t want to prove global warming; they want an accurate, useful global climate modeler that they can use.

Sure, there are some factors that they miss. The effects of dust from the Sahara for one. Who knew it would have a significant effect on Atlantic water temperature? That’s why they constantly test their models—in order to refine them and make them better. Yes, there is a certain level of uncertainty. We may not even quite know exactly what that level is. But climatologists are constantly trying to estimate that level, as accurately as possible.

It is this level of commitment to accuracy that makes me trust them more than political pundits that we know have a political agenda. You say that the scientists must have a political agenda, too. But from my experience with scientists, I have found that politics is normally comes in a distant second to getting good data, especially in the academic journals. There, other scientists are more than happy to tear apart your ideas and theories if they find an error in it.

And, yes, some scientists disagree. Doctors often disagree, too. But when nine doctors have one opinion, and one has a different opinion, which opinion has the better chance of being right?

quote:
I'm relying on the observations of Abdussamatov and others about the solar cycle as the driver for climate change and the historical trends detailed above.
Exactly how reliable is this historical data? U.S. Presidents had a 20-year cycle of dying in office, until Ronald Regan came along.

Is the heating from increased energy from the sun? Haven’t climatologists been measuring that, and taken it into account? How much of increase in Earth’s temperature is from the sun, and how much from other factors?

You are relying on one small piece of data to be more accurate than the sum total of the data. What makes you believe that is more accurate, when a historical trend may have a glitch, or may not explain all of the temperature increase?

quote:
I'm not saying this is 100% reliable as global warming advocates claim for their model but I'm not asking you to significantly alter and reduce your quality of life either.
First off, climatologists do not claim they are 100% accurate, just the most accurate we have to date. Stop saying that it is 100% accurate.

Second, what does “significantly alter and reduce your quality of life” have to do with anything??? Do you think the facts give a hoot about what they will do to our lifestyle? That’s like someone saying, “Well, I’m not sure of the alternate diagnosis, but chemotherapy would significantly alter my lifestyle, so I like it better.” Yes, there are people who use that type of reasoning. But are you one of them? [Wink]

The actions we must take because of global climate change are irrelevant. How certain spokespersons act is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is whether human-induced global climate change is occurring. And the best way to determine that is to look at all the data and make our best predictions. And from what I’ve heard, the majority of those who are experts in the field agree that humans are inducing a significant amount of heat to accumulate in our biosphere, which I take as our best guess at this time.

How we respond to that, and if it requires us to “significantly alter and reduce your quality of life” is another question entirely, that has nothing to do with that analysis.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 
quote:
Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists who Cover Global Warming
68 pg PDF from United States Senator James Inhofe, (former) Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

I can't seem to get the link to work on my machine, but I would like to point out that, as we talked about before, Senator Inhofe is a complete moron when it comes to global climate change. In a Fox interview (linked in the link), he was self-contradictory and couldn't get his facts straight (nice way to say he lied on-air [Smile] ).

I would take any report from that political pundit with a large grain of salt.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Climate and the sun

global warming didn't stop in 1998

On the 1998 thing... when you cherry pick a starting point in order to support a pre-conceived position, its a logical fallacy.

Of course, being wrong (as the linked table shows) isn't a logical fallacy. Its just being wrong.

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


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

However, I believe I do have a slightly better idea of what is involved than you do.

What do you base that on? I could work for NASA for all you know - or KFC. I also have a background that leads me to knowledge of physics, the scientific method and how computer sims are developed. More than you? Maybe, you don't know if I write these sims for living or I took a couple classes at the community college between shifts at the deep fryer.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Because at the end of the day, climatologists don’t want to prove global warming; they want an accurate, useful global climate modeler that they can use.

Right. They don't want to prove their pet theories and keep the funding rolling in. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Politics has a long history of corrupting science. Why is you think climatologists are untouched by this?
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

And, yes, some scientists disagree. Doctors often disagree, too. But when nine doctors have one opinion, and one has a different opinion, which opinion has the better chance of being right?

I've pointed out quite well that you're not hearing everything the debate has going. Many are intimidated and I provided the links to prove that. And just last week, Dr. Claude Allegre, one of France's biggest stars in the scientific community and a global warming proponent has utterly recanted his position and says:
quote:
... the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
First off, climatologists do not claim they are 100% accurate, just the most accurate we have to date. Stop saying that it is 100% accurate.

Alright then, how accurate are they? 90%? 50% With the expertise for computer modeling you claim, you must have some number you can defend about how accurate they are.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

Second, what does “significantly alter and reduce your quality of life” have to do with anything??? Do you think the facts give a hoot about what they will do to our lifestyle?

I was talking about the proposed sacrifices required to mitigate the threat of global warming - unless you're rich or in Hollywood, then you can simply buy the carbon credits from yourself and all is well.

First you say, "And the best way to determine that is to look at all the data and make our best predictions." And then follow it up with, "I would take any report from that political pundit with a large grain of salt." as a part of character assassination of Senator Inhofe. So what is it? You want to look at all the data or just the data you prefer?

quote:
Originally posted by everard:
On the 1998 thing... when you cherry pick a starting point in order to support a pre-conceived position, its a logical fallacy.

Yeah, kind of like picking the end of the little ice age as the starting point to prove global warming. But it's your preconceived position it supports so I guess it's OK? [Razz]

Read more about global cooling here.

[ March 05, 2007, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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 
quote:
I could work for NASA for all you know - or KFC. I also have a background that leads me to knowledge of physics, the scientific method and how computer sims are developed. More than you? Maybe, you don't know if I write these sims for living or I took a couple classes at the community college between shifts at the deep fryer.
I know this because of the way you stated your objections. If you had a good working knowledge of physics, the scientific method, etc. you would have stated why the theories are garbage, except for saying it was “garbage in, garbage out.” You would never have said, twice, that the computer models were “perfected” or “100% accurate.” You would have had an idea of how the programs were put together, and what the types of laws of physics that would have been used.

You didn’t, which means that your statements indicate that you don’t have this knowledge.

Now, if you do work for NASA, have a degree in physics or computer science, or have extensive knowledge of computer modeling, or any background that would give you a good understanding of the technical issues involved, please let me know. If you have a more extensive background than myself, I will gladly concede that you have a better idea of what is involved. But so far, you have not shown any such knowledge.

quote:
Politics has a long history of corrupting science. Why is you think climatologists are untouched by this?
Politics has not “corrupted science” as much as some think, especially the hard sciences where equations are used. (It is much harder to lie using equations. [Smile] ) There may be some pet theories that are held closely, but how do you “tweek” a huge computer program--so complex that it requires the fastest supercomputers around to make the calculations, and which is checked against actual measurements--to make it come out with the result that you want? That’s a pretty tall order. But, apparently, it has been done on few such programs to “keep the funds rolling in.”

I’d like to know how they could do it. Do you know?

quote:
I've pointed out quite well that you're not hearing everything the debate has going. Many are intimidated and I provided the links to prove that.
That is possible. It’s hard to measure how much effect intimidation has. On the other hand, how do you intimidate a computer? [Wink]

quote:
Alright then, how accurate are they? 90%? 50% With the expertise for computer modeling you claim, you must have some number you can defend about how accurate they are.
Typically, the results are given in a range that is somewhere around 80 percent probability, if I recall my statistics correctly. Someone quoted a range recently; I’ll look for it after I post this.

quote:
First you say, "And the best way to determine that is to look at all the data and make our best predictions." And then follow it up with, "I would take any report from that political pundit with a large grain of salt." as a part of character assassination of Senator Inhofe. So what is it? You want to look at all the data or just the data you prefer?
First off, as I stated, I can’t look at the data because my machine won’t make the link. [Smile]

Second, I am not saying that everything Senator Inhofe says is a lie. He is simply unreliable. Quoting him is like quoting the KKK about the history of race relationships. [Smile] He is so biased that he is illogical and gets facts incorrect.

For proof, see his interview with Fox News. Listen to it, think about what he says, then read the thread I linked to previously. Then tell me he isn’t both illogical and can’t keep his facts straight. He is the worst source on global climate change I’ve ever heard. (And he was the Chairman of the Environmental Committee??? [Eek!] ) This has to do with his displayed knowledge of the subject, not how he responds to this knowledge or his character.

That is not character assassination. It is simply looking at the major criteria for finding someone reliable.

[ March 05, 2007, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I know this because of the way you stated your objections. If you had a good working knowledge of physics, the scientific method, etc. you would have stated why the theories are garbage, except for saying it was “garbage in, garbage out.” You would never have said, twice, that the computer models were “perfected” or “100% accurate.” You would have had an idea of how the programs were put together, and what the types of laws of physics that would have been used.

You didn’t, which means that your statements indicate that you don’t have this knowledge.

Actually, you don't know it, you simply infer it to fit your preconceived template of anyone who disagrees with you. I'm not going to publish a doctoral dissertation here. This is a discussion forum, not a publishing one to generate some kind of street cred. If you feel better thinking I don't know anything about science and/or computing, then I feel just fine letting you continue to feel that way. I have no interest in whipping out my degrees to see whose is bigger.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
... but how do you “tweek” a huge computer program--so complex that it requires the fastest supercomputers around to make the calculations, and which is checked against actual measurements--to make it come out with the result that you want? That’s a pretty tall order. But, apparently, it has been done on few such programs to “keep the funds rolling in.”

I’d like to know how they could do it. Do you know?

I do know and I can tell you it's quite easy to do. The bigger and more complex the system gets, the easier it is to insert code (intentionally and unintentionally -i.e. bugs) into it. The computer always does exactly what you tell it to do.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
That is possible. It’s hard to measure how much effect intimidation has. On the other hand, how do you intimidate a computer? [Wink]

You intimidate the scientist writing the code or interpreting the results. If they don't get the results you want, you make them try again or you bury their research.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
That is not character assassination. It is simply looking at the major criteria for finding someone reliable.

If such euphemisms help you build your case, then by all means feel free to do it. I will feel free to continue to point them out for what they are.

[ March 05, 2007, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tristan
Member
Member # 374

 - posted      Profile for Tristan   Email Tristan       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not character assassination when the subject is mortally ill; it's euthanasia. We should all rejoice that Wayward Son put Senator Inhofe out of his misery!

[ March 05, 2007, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

Posts: 171 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  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 
quote:
I have no interest in whipping out my degrees to see whose is bigger.
Agreed. We really don't care about degrees and credentials around here. What we care about is knowledge and facts, and educating each other on those things.

So instead, please be specific and cite examples of aspects of "garbage in, garbage out," instead of simply insinuating that is the case.

quote:
The bigger and more complex the system gets, the easier it is to insert code (intentionally and unintentionally -i.e. bugs) into it. The computer always does exactly what you tell it to do.
Absolutely true. But to get predetermined results (and remember, it's not just showing that global warming is occurring, but it also must reasonably derive the actual measurements), it would be difficult to do so in a subtle way. I would think that you'd need a line of code that specifically changes the outputs when they went astray. Otherwise, the results could go all over the place.

Once a fraudulent line of code came to light, the scientists' reputations would be destroyed, and their careers over. Very few, if any, would think it was worth it.

A vast majority of scientists want to do good work, and would not risk their reputation for some political ideology.

quote:
If they don't get the results you want, you make them try again or you bury their research.
For small research teams, this is quite possible. But when you are working at an international level, with different countries doing the research, it becomes less likely. After all, you can make a reputation disproving a popular idea just as quickly as proving it. [Smile]

quote:
If such euphemisms help you build your case, then by all means feel free to do it.
I call 'em as I see 'em, too. From what I saw in that interview, Senator Inhofe is so biased, I wouldn't trust him to tell me what time it was without checking someone else's watch. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dr. Claude Allegre, one of France's biggest stars in the scientific community and a global warming proponent has utterly recanted his position and says: "... the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming."
So, to clarify, you believe that it's okay to listen to models as long as they don't demonstrate global warming.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


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

So instead, please be specific and cite examples of aspects of "garbage in, garbage out," instead of simply insinuating that is the case.

The lack of including Saharan sands in the model is a good enough, and concrete, example.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
But to get predetermined results (and remember, it's not just showing that global warming is occurring, but it also must reasonably derive the actual measurements), it would be difficult to do so in a subtle way. I would think that you'd need a line of code that specifically changes the outputs when they went astray. Otherwise, the results could go all over the place.

Just juggle the equations and weighting a bit. If I know the actual test measurements I will be judged against, a moderately clever programmer could achieve those results with a totally inadequate simulation model (happens all the time in graduate school). Give the scale an complexity of these programs, it's just a matter of "playing with it" to get what you want when you want it whether to fit preconceived notions or patron funding desires or just because that's the way you think some algorithim goes.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Once a fraudulent line of code came to light, the scientists' reputations would be destroyed, and their careers over. Very few, if any, would think it was worth it.

Consequently very few would want it to come out. They would update the program and come out with new, improved forecasts based on new data and techniques. Sound familiar? Happens all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:

A vast majority of scientists want to do good work, and would not risk their reputation for some political ideology.

I agree they want to do good work and that their reputation is vital. Consequently, they do what enhances their reputation and right now proving man-made global warming is a reputation builder. Proving the opposite is a reputation destroyer (as I've linked to). Good work that enhances reputations does not guarantee good results.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
For small research teams, this is quite possible. But when you are working at an international level, with different countries doing the research, it becomes less likely.

I have participated in large multinational projects before. If anything, there's more confusion and chances for error (like metric to english conversion for mars landers). If you're trying to be intentional about it, you may need to be pretty clever but given a complex program like these and multinational chaos, you have an arena ripe for manipulation if you want to do it. And that's not manipulation as in attempts to be dishonest but in pressuring others to achieve the "right" results.


quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
After all, you can make a reputation disproving a popular idea just as quickly as proving it. [Smile]

Only if your ideas are allowed to get out.

I realize this isn't climatology but the story of Dr. Barry Marshall highlights this kind of thing in science (medical science in his case). It took quite a bit personally and professionally to get to the point he won the Nobel Prize and he describes the pressures and economic incentives that play into such research.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Dr. Claude Allegre, one of France's biggest stars in the scientific community and a global warming proponent has utterly recanted his position and says: "... the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming."
So, to clarify, you believe that it's okay to listen to models as long as they don't demonstrate global warming.
No, you're completely missing the point.
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 
I think I have to agree with G2 on this, Tom. If someone believes the models fail to demonstrate man-made global warming, that does not imply that the models are necessarily any good. It might simply mean that the models are inadequate to prove the point.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Model that demonstrates global warming...

Tyra Banks Farting

Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The lack of including Saharan sands in the model is a good enough, and concrete, example."

No its not. It simply shows an incomplete understanding of climate effects... and since no one can claim complete understanding, by your reasoning here, no one can make any predictions about the weather.

Garbage in garbage out means that the inputs are BAD, that something is wrong with the equations used to run the programs.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, what I'm driving at is this: what is leading you to conclude that we're heading for a cooling period, if not yet another model? That your prediction relies on a very simplistic model using far fewer datapoints than most climatologists' models doesn't mean it's not a model.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:Originally posted by simplybiological:
One thing I find a little entertaining about this thread is that people who work in the field don't call the phenomenon "Global Warming," and haven't for a while.

We (Well, THEY- I defected from the field) refer to it as "Climate Change," because different locations experience the phenomenon differently- some places cool, some places warm, depending on ocean currents, wind currents, particulates, etc etc etc.

That's quite the convenient way to restructure the debate isn't it? Warmer than usual? It's man made and we must change everything or we're going to destroy the planet! Colder than usual? It's man made and we must change everything or we're going to destroy the planet! Too windy? Not windy enough? Etc, etc, etc. No matter what the weather, it's man made and something must be done. It's a nice way to have everything, no matter how contradictory they are of each other, be proof of the theory.

This isn't "restructuring the debate"... this is looking at the data and weather systems and ocean currents, etc. This isn't just a debate out there in the ether, this is actually based on data.

Do you really think things happen on earth uniformly? REALLY? Why is it so hard for you to grasp that one phenomenon might have multiple results?

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"The lack of including Saharan sands in the model is a good enough, and concrete, example."

No its not. It simply shows an incomplete understanding of climate effects... and since no one can claim complete understanding, by your reasoning here, no one can make any predictions about the weather.

Garbage in garbage out means that the inputs are BAD, that something is wrong with the equations used to run the programs.

They can make all the predictions they want, I just prefer they be accurate. And yes, it does show an incomplete understanding of climate effects - my point all along. An Dr. Allegre's as well it appears.

I don't want to argue the semantics of GIGO with you. Suffice to say, the data is incomplete or inaccurate.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
G2, what I'm driving at is this: what is leading you to conclude that we're heading for a cooling period, if not yet another model? That your prediction relies on a very simplistic model using far fewer datapoints than most climatologists' models doesn't mean it's not a model.

I assume you have something here besides semantic snark.

quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:
Do you really think things happen on earth uniformly? REALLY? Why is it so hard for you to grasp that one phenomenon might have multiple results?

No, I don't think that. I understand - it's cold, man-made global warming caused it. It's warm, man-made global warming caused it. Windy? Not windy? More snow than usual? Less snow? It all fits the theory because it all relates to localized phenomena resulting from global warming. No matter the weather, humans made it that way. I get it, REALLY. It's nice having a theory that is proven no matter what happens.

[ March 05, 2007, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"They can make all the predictions they want, I just prefer they be right."

The models that predict all the doom and gloom you are decrying have been far more accurate at predicting future temperatures then any other model for global climate. So... if you want accurate predictions, you're gonna have to go to the models you decry as garbage in garbage out.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah? How accurate are they? They missed hurricane season 2006 by one helluva lot. They don't seem that accurate to me or a lot of other climate experts for that matter.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
weather/=climate.

That said, Hansen's scenario B from 1988 is still pretty close to dead on for average global temperature.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
simplybiological
Member
Member # 1344

 - posted      Profile for simplybiological   Email simplybiological   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, I don't think that. I understand - it's cold, man-made global warming caused it. It's warm, man-made global warming caused it. Windy? Not windy? More snow than usual? Less snow? It all fits the theory because it all relates to localized phenomena resulting from global warming. No matter the weather, humans made it that way. I get it, REALLY. It's nice having a theory that is proven no matter what happens.
Are you being deliberately dense or are you really not understanding what I'm saying?

If you try to average out the local phenomena into one generalized trend, you get inconsistencies. Localized trends should be consistent; it's not as though I'm saying, "Oh, central Texas is warm, must be global warming- whoops, now it's cool, must be global warming." I'm saying, "Central Texas is getting hotter, England will be colder."

Incidentally, I don't rely on models to draw my conclusions.. there's a lot of evidence that has nothing to do with models. Have you ever read that, or do you deem it unworthy simply because you hate climate modeling?

Also, BY THE WAY, no scientist ever says "prove."

Posts: 1742 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I assume you have something here besides semantic snark.
Yes, I do. Again: why do you think your own more limited model is superior to the much more elaborate models you've been saying are "garbage?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Newman
Member
Member # 3668

 - posted      Profile for Newman         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hate to support G2 on this, but in my experience, he is right about large scale computations, publications etc. I haven't done large scale weather predictions, but I have done enough of large scale computational fluid mechanics to know how dicey simulations can be.

When the underlying partial differential equations are nonlinear (as they are in climate/weather prediction models) even large scale computations are unreliable. This is because, discretization of the equations inherently introduces significant errors.

One minor example of the way in which errors can be introduced -- People add damping numerical terms to the equations in order to make simulations stable (i.e not give infinite answers). These damping terms add new effects which are supposed to be negligible but it is often unclear that they are for any finite sized simulation (they only go to zero in the limit of infinitely accurate simulations)

Also, mathematical error analysis of nonlinear PDEs is still at a very infantile stage. Most people analyze their numerical schemes in the linear and quasi-linear limits and can show the schemes' validity there.

Further, turbulent and chaotic simulations typically use additional models. These models are often *extremely* ad-hoc. You would astounded to know how haphazardly people come up with these models. Of course, they have been worked on sufficiently to account for known cases --this is often achieved by fitting constants to match experimental results. However, these are unreliable in cases where experimental results do not exist.

Now, I don't know if these computations on the supercomputers also use turbulence models etc, but I don't see how they do any simulations at the length and time scales involoved without that. To give you a comparison, if you do a simulation of *just* the fluid effects around an aircraft without modeling, you would need the age of the universe to get done. It is of course possible that the conditions that effect weather are more benign, or that they have good statistical models, but I seriously doubt it.

In short, I am skeptical of the predictive value of computational simulations at this scale.

G2 is also right about the problems with peer review, especially when it comes to computational simulations. People do not in general provide their codes with which the results were obtained. It is phenomenally hard to code these things by yourself to check.
Most groups have their own models and numerical schemes and it is very hard to test the underlying model. Most often it is a test of the numerical method and not the physical model.
Incremental results and models often go untested as long as they look reasonable. People don't have to cheat, but they can have bugs, ad-hoc (but "justified) terms etc in their code which will make them work.

Posts: 22 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Newman
Member
Member # 3668

 - posted      Profile for Newman         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simplybiological:


Incidentally, I don't rely on models to draw my conclusions.. there's a lot of evidence that has nothing to do with models.

I probably know less about global warming than most people on this forum, but what non-model based evidence I have read does support it quite strongly; Which is why I believe it. However, it would be nice to review the evidence. Could you point me to some sources? Thanks..
Posts: 22 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of climate model deficiencies...

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/09/

Seems to actually do a decent job of getting into the science end of the equation.

Even better for this discussion, favorite topics over there is research where the data points one way, but the press release, or the researcher's when discussing it, spin it as representing something else.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
libdisemboweler
Member
Member # 3887

 - posted      Profile for libdisemboweler     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We need to use man-made global warming through carbon emissions to continue to offset the now long-overdue cataclysm of a modern ice age.

It's only blind luck that has spared us so far.

It's time to start polluting now in purposeful earnest if we want to have any chance at all of survival.

[Eek!]

[ March 06, 2007, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: libdisemboweler ]

Posts: 44 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are only like a dozen different natural events that could occur which would put us in an ice age virtually over night.

Granted, one is a large asteroid impact, which would likely burn most people to death first.

Most of the rest are the various supervolcano's that we probably have millenia to go before they become truely worrisome.

But the Solar Cycles of high/low activity are by far the one most likely to catch us in our lifetime. The fun part is that we really don't have a large enough frame of reference to work with to create a reliable model for that.

We will have another ice age on Earth, or at least a prolonged period of global cooling. The question is what is going to trigger it first, and how long until it occurs. Though looking at the "solar cycle" stuff, it seems that it can take years for other planets in our solar system to start to "cool down" after periods of (comparatively) close proximity (for them) to the Sun. So the solar luminescence data I keep seeing allusions to intrigue me to no end, but not enough to pay for access to it... Which is the only place I keep seeing it referenced to.

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  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 
quote:
In short, I am skeptical of the predictive value of computational simulations at this scale.
Thank you, Newman, for a lucid and detailed explanation of why the computer models may be off.

The one thing that helps distinguish the good models from the bad is comparison to the actual data. As Everard mentioned (if its the one I'm thinking of), "Hansen's scenario B from 1988 is still pretty close to dead on for average global temperature." This is a good indication that the model is fairly accurate.

I understand also that the models are run several times, using different initial conditions, in order to find the "attractive lines" where the models would most likely follow.

Admittedly, chaotic systems can diverge enormously from the actual values over the long-term. And this may be a source of inaccuracy for the global warming predictions based on the computer models. But there is another source for the belief in probable global warming.

Simple physics.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, in that it "traps" infrared radiation. This is a simple, proven fact. The levels of CO2 in our atmosphere have been rising in recent decades. This has been measured. The current levels are larger than in recent history. And humans are pumping out large amounts of CO2, more than has naturally occurred any time except during unusual volcanic events (IIRC). And ours has been going on longer than most of those events.

What this inevitably leads to is that, as CO2 levels rise, the Earth's average temperature should rise. And Hansen's scenarios, and actual measurements, show this very well.

So what you have is a driving force--greenhouse gases (esp. CO2)--that is driving the average temperature of the Earth up. This is well established using known, uncontested principles of physics. This means that the only thing the computer models are doing is trying to elaborate on other factors that are mitigating this driving force.

If it weren't for the other aspects of our weather system, our average temperature would just keep rising.

So the computer models are trying to understand why the Earth's temperature isn't going up as fast as it should.

The various climatologists are trying to incorporate all the other factors that they know about. They are trying to incorporate any new factors as they are found. And they are trying to model them as best they can, with our limited knowledge and the limits of computational power. But still the results show that the Earth's average temperature keeps rising.

So far, they haven't found enough mitigating factors that can turn it around.

This is why G2 faith in the 20 year cycle is so silly. That model (if you can call a noted cycle with no supporting reason a "model"--much like the 20 year President-is-dead-in-office "model") does not take into account any changes to the conditions on Earth. These could easily break the cycle.

It is also why G2's distain for the computer models is ill-founded, too. Because ultimately he is waiting for the models to find those unknown factors that will completely mitigate the basic driving force of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And there is no reason to believe that they will be there.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Sunspots run on a well documented 11 year +/- a few months cycle. So it wouldn't be a surprise to learn it(the sun) also has certain other cyclical behaviors as well.
Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can we all just agree that Al Gore is a hypocrite? Thank you.

That being said, even if you don't believe in global warming, you might as well go along with it so we can stop depending on Middle East oil.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  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 
Why is Gore a hypocrite exactly? I haven't seen any arguments on this thead supporting that (assumptions, and by G2 no less, but no arguments)
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adding this to the list of links with information circulating in here regarding "state of the science" of climate change/global warming. (in particular modeling)

http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/news/2007/ltt462%20feature.pdf

I'm generally enjoying the work of the Pielkes(Jr and Sr) that I'm finding. They're not denying climate change. What they disagree with is the models being used, and many of the assumptions being used in those models. As can be referenced in that link.

quote:
Climate scientist Roger Pielke Snr of the University of Colorado, Boulder believes the IPCC and policy-makers generally are too focused on CO2 emissions. “Humans are significantly altering the global climate but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide,” says Pielke, a former co-chief editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Science, on his Climate Science weblog. He praises the analysis in the US National Research Council’s 2005 report Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, which concluded that changes in land-use and industry emissions (aerosols) have much larger regional climate impacts than revealed in the way the IPCC calculates radiative forcing.

Pielke says the spatial concentration of aerosol emissions and land-use changes means that they present a greater threat of bringing about ‘threshold’ changes to the climate system than rising global CO2 concentrations. “As a simple example of this, we find a greater impact of sunlight on a piece of paper when we focus it with a lens,” he told LTT. He says the emphasis on cutting cutting CO2 to control temperature is “scientifically flawed”, estimating that man’s CO2 emissions have accounted for about 30% of
warming up to the present – substantially lower than the IPCC estimates.

Pielke (who is a co-author of the book Human impacts on weather and climate, the second edition of which is to be published by Cambridge University Press this month) also disputes many of the observational records that underpin the IPCC analysis, such as global surface land surface temperature, glacier retreat and ocean temperature. “The reported ‘warming’ from the Hadley Centre/University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit data [the source of the IPCC’s 0.7ºC warming estimate] has a warm bias of significant value (certainly tenths of a degree) in its construction,” he says. On glacier evidence he says recent peer reviewed research shows that “the general message that glaciers are receding almost everywhere is clearly not accurate when the data is evaluated in detail”.

Other goodies cited in that article, not from the Pielkes.

quote:
Some scientists do believe that natural factors can explain climate change. In the book The chilling stars, to be published next month, Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, will point the finger at cosmic rays. Calder, writing in The Sunday Times last weekend, said:
“More cosmic rays [equals] more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world... We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle the book ‘A new theory of climate change’.”

Topicly related to the previous quote(albeit not climate related): NASA Article on Sunspot Cycle Forcasts, complete with graph of acticity over the last several cycles

Continuing within that Article initially linked:

quote:
Climate physicist Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the US disagrees vehemently with alarming global warming predictions. Lindzen, who was a lead author for the IPCC’s third assessment report, says there is broad agreement that the world warmed in the 20th century, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that man has been responsible for recent increases in CO2. But he says the temperature change of a few tenths of a degree recorded in the late 20th century is so small that it could be explained by nothing more than “natural, internal, unforced variability”.
Lindzen says climate models vastly overestimate temperature changes resulting from increases in CO2. All other things being equal, Lindzen says a doubling of CO2 should result in a global mean warming of just 1ºC. “Alarming predictions all require that water vapour and clouds act so as to greatly amplify the impact of CO2,” he (and fellow critics) say in a recent critique of the Stern Review published in World Economics. “But it is freely acknowledged, including by the IPCC, that water vapour and especially clouds are poorly modelled, while the underlying physics for determining their behaviour is missing or even unknown.”


Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, here's why I think Al Gore is a hypocrite:

One of the ways the carbon offsets have worked is to buy low-energy light bulbs for people in developing countries. So basically instead of reducing your energy use, which for whatever reason you're unable or unwilling to do, you decide to pay for other people to reduce THEIR energy consumption, hoping it all balances out. To me this is akin to a rich man deciding that rather than send his own son to war, he will pay to equip a poor man's son for war, and send him instead. The country still gets a soldier it wouldn't have otherwise had if not for the acts of the rich man. But is it fair? Not really.

The success of Al Gore's movement rests on his ability to persuade other people to reduce their greenhouse emissions by changing their lifestyles. Ideally, he would want all people to be living the most low carbon lifestyle possible. Ironically, this situation would make carbon credits in the form of paying other people to cut back their energy use, completely useless. The success of carbon credits requires the presence of high consumers. Seems to me what Gore should really be doing is modeling the kind of lifestyle that the majority of Americans would have to adopt if we were all to life a zero-carbon lifestyle. That is, if his goal was really to convince the everyday American do do this, instead of just rich celebrities, which I am doubting.

The only way he could not be a hypocrite is if he honestly believes that he will do more good with his cross-country jet trips and large mansion used for high-profile parties to raise awareness of his message than if he lived in a cabin in the woods. I have not heard him make that argument yet.

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've lost track and this thread has gotten kinda long, global warming bores me (bad liberal!).

Have we decided Al Gore is a hypocrite yet or not?

Thanks.

KE

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