(can of worms alert) Globe hasn't warmed in the last 16 years 76

[beej67]

Worth a read. One significance of the article to me is the 'skeptic' isn't a loon, she's the head of the EAS department at Georgia Tech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[zdas04]

Would that the "corrections are documented for each dataset". Each researcher has his own understanding of the adjustments so whoever processed the raw data applies his corrections and goes away. The datasets do not indicate which of hundreds of algorithms are applied to the data. Some of the changes seem almost like an institutional bias, but we know that doesn't happen.

"The time series" do not "suffer from misalignment" they suffer from optimistic interpretations of the dead band. If a dataset has an uncertainty of +/-10 years then any value from 20 years to 40 years is exactly the same number. Treating the values in any other way will range from wishful thinking to criminal intent.

One argument about cause and effect of this issue stirs up debate about which came first CO2 or warming, but as any climate scientist will explain the two are linked in feedback so this question is moot by itself. Either will elicit the other.

If you reject the Greenhouse Gas hypotheses out of hand, then the feedback loop doesn't happen. The earth warms. The permafrost retracts (measurable physical phenomena that was measured during the warming period in the 1990s). The frozen organic material becomes available for biological activity. Atmospheric CO2 increases within a year. This is a complete hypotheses that doesn't require computer models. It could be as wrong as the GHG hypotheses looks to me. It does plausibly fit the uncertainty in the data sets better than the GHG hypotheses. And don't say that GHG is a FACT as though shouting will make it so. I've heard the shouting and am not impressed.

As to "Principle Component Analysis" I did my Masters in Fluid Mechanics. In doing research for my Theses I reviewed several hundred PhD Theses documents and many other learned writings. Many of which went to great lengths to describe their "orthogonal vectors", "Eigenvalues" and "Eigenvectors". One sticks in my mind. After this verbose choom went on for over 300 pages about his Analysis he said that the results of it ended up with a system of empirical equations that would "match actual flows within +/-35% almost 22% of the time". In other words he felt that 1/5 of the time he could predict a 100 ft/sec flow stream as having a velocity between 65 and 135 ft/sec, the other 4/5 of the time he was less accurate. He and his PhD committee saw this as a huge win. Now he's teaching our children.

I've never heard the fluid and thermodynamic forces in the environment described as "freshman physics" before. Maybe I should have paid more attention. I got good marks so I thought I was paying attention, but maybe I missed that day. It really is not simple. It is kind of complicated actually. Much more complicated than any fluid system that has ever been successfully analyzed. The climate models with grid blocks the size of Colorado make me think of doing Engineering drawings with a paint roller. The model that was developed for my new separator has 1/10 the number of grid blocks than are used for the entire earth and the separator has a volume of 0.17 m^3 not 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. In any given one cubic meter control volume of the earth's atmosphere there are flow forces, rotational forces, gravitational forces, electrical forces, magnetic forces, nuclear forces, forces due to heat transfer, and other forces too numerous to mention. These all interact in amazingly complex and beautiful ways that absolutely defy closed form solutions. That is in a cubic meter. There are 4.2x10[sup]18[/sup] cubic meters in the atmosphere. Every one has a potential to effect every other one. My pissant model takes 28 hours to run to completion on the fastest computer array at Los Alamos National Laboratory (it is a long story). That model does a great job of explaining observed measured parameters. We let it extrapolate 20-25 time cycles into the future, and each time step is 20 seconds. I think that the results are useful. I don't think I'd let it go 200 time steps (just over an hour) into the future. Climate models are trying to tell us about the year 2500. Utter and complete tripe.

I've taken the time to write this because the meeting I'm in the office for today got canceled and I'm bored. Not sure when I'll be able to get back to a response if one is needed.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[2dye4]

I don't think that level of modeling is required to understand greenhouse gas climate change.

In the reference that i linked was a simple model using a partial diff equation that produced expected rise in temps vs CO2.
And lets not forget it did quite well.


The net heat flux through the atmospheric due to CO2 and the specific heat capacity of the planets materials are the main concepts to be conquered.

To simplify enormously, you don't need to know how the air is flowing around in your oven to know that the turkey will cook.

BTW do you agree that methods such as principle component analysis are important to the science of temp reconstructions??

 

[rb1957]

one part of the problem is "is the earth warming ?" ... whatever that means ('cause clearly some parts are warming as others are cooling). i don't think the data (terrestial or satellite) is conclusive. i guess someone will respond with solar energy in and energy reflected out ... if you're doing that you should add in the waste heat generated by human activity.

take it for a given that we're increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere (from 0.03% to 0.04% or so) from burning fossil fuels. and there are a whole bunch of interactions (absorption into the oceans, conversion into bio-mass, ...).

the next key question is how related are these two ? i think most of the debate is saying that all of the temperature change is due to human activity; i know there are some papers out there that show an amount is due to solar effects, but not many. i think the "non-believers" (that's neutral enough for me) think that most is solar driven (and so out of our control).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[moltenmetal]

Wow, this really needs to be a new thread...it needed to be one about 200 posts ago.

 

[beej67]

In the reference that i linked was a simple model using a partial diff equation that produced expected rise in temps vs CO2.
And lets not forget it did quite well.

1) Didn't do quite well over the last 16 years, because the temp record is flat over the last 16 years,

2) Correlation /= Causality. It did quite well showing that human population and global temperature are correlated. That's all. Humans do lots of things to our environment other than release CO2. Ye Olde CO2 Hockey Stick happens exactly the same as Ye Olde Human Population Hockey Stick does, which also coincides directly with the advent of mechanized agriculture, and vast anthropomorphic changes to the earth itself. All of which are ignored or brushed away by the atmospheric chemists, because, well, they're atmospheric chemists.

If the modelers were serious about discovering the problem, instead of hanging the cause on a predetermined bogey man, then they would be looking for factors of human interaction with our environment that have leveled off the last 16 years, and they'd try their correlation gambit with those factors instead of carbon. They might get better correlation than they got from carbon.

So why isn't anyone doing that? I'd postulate because there's no money in it.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[TGS4]

I don't think that most "non-believers" would argue with the fundamental physics of infrared absorption by gases. Those fundamentals indicate that for a doubling of CO2, it is expected that the planet would heat up 1°C. That increase is logarithmic, so a doubling from 300ppm to 600ppm would have the same effect as going from 400ppm to 800ppm (to a first order approximation). I suppose that we could all agree that such a change is well within the historic/geological record and is not much cause for concern or claim of catastrophe.

Where the catastrophic claims come from are the feedbacks - especially those due to the water cycle: humidity and clouds. 2dye4 - I would agree with you that for the fundamentals, you do not need a finely-resolved simulation. However, that's not the argument. The argument is over these feedbacks, and because those as so poorly understood, you might need incredibly-fine resolution in the GCMs. For example, tropical thunderstorms are incredibly efficient heat engines, yet our understand of their genesis, development, and death are not sufficiently understood so as to properly simulate them. And yet a 1% change in albedo caused by additional cloudiness during the day could completely offset any additional radiative forcings from further additions to greenhouse gases. Likewise, additional cloudiness at night could enhance the effect. The error bars on our understanding of these weather/climate features are HUGE. The same thing can be said for our understand of the other cycles: AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, etc.

So, 2dye4 - you may be correct in your statement that the fundamentals don't need ridiculously-fine grids. However, the feedbacks (which are the source of the claims of catastrophe) do need them.

Unless you think that 1°C rise in temperature (we've experienced about 0.7C) since ~1850 is catastrophic. Either way, we need to define catastrophe first.

 

[TomDOT]

As an aside, May has been seeing quite a few all-time record low temperatures at the Austin airport, including a new record low for the month as a whole at 37°F. Outside of Austin proper, the Hill Country has had some sub-freezing temperatures, and AFAIK (according to the weather guy on the news this morning) - nobody has been able to find previously recorded sub-freezing temperatures in the area during May. One of the LCRA gauges was at 29°F.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/view/validProds.php?prod=RER&node=KEWX

 

[cranky108]

Does any of this discussion address the fact that oue energy rich diet is going to lead to energy price hikes as millions of people in other countries strive to reach our level of affulence? Warming or not, we do need to look at if we need, and maybe how we can cutback our level of energy consumption.

The problem areas appear to be space conditioning, and transportaion as the biggest consumers of energy.

 

[TomDOT]

Cranky, there is a lot of cheap low-hanging fruit for energy efficiency.

...but caulking gaps around the windows and blowing more insulation into your attic isn't "sexy" like all these LEED projects.

After two rounds of going through the proper channels to have the facilities guys recaulk the windows of my office and still missing some significant drafty gaps, I gave up and did it myself last week.

 

[rb1957]

geeze, i Hate "low hanging fruit" ... i guess it's just me but i immediately think to the joke about tarzan and the elephant

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[racookpe1978]

2dye4

Unless you think that 1°C rise in temperature (we've experienced about 0.7C) since ~1850 is catastrophic. Either way, we need to define catastrophe first.

Well, the latest satellite global-wide temperature anomaly (difference from the "average or baseline worldwide temperature based on the early 1970's) is ..... 1/10 of one degree C.

That's it. 0.10 degrees in what is now 42+ years.

By the way, temperatures rose, were steady, and fell while CO2 was steady. On the millennium, century, decade, and yearly levels.
Temperatures rose (25 years), fell (20 years), and have been steady (15 years) while CO2 has risen constantly.

So, what is the relationship between CO2 and temperature? (Other than the federal and state grant money to the 97% of government-paid "scientists" who are paid government money to research CO2 and temperature so taxes can be raised to pay more government "workers"?)

 

[beej67]

IPCC about to get themselves into hot water.

Or, rather, cooler water than they claimed initially.

http://www.economist.com/news/scien...de-next-ipcc-assessment-sensitive-information

http://www.cato.org/blog/ipcc-ar5-r...buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

Yes, the low-end of the IPCC estimated range of the global mean temperature increase by 2100 has been reduced from 2.0°C to 1.5°C, but the high-end of the range is left unchanged at 4.5°C.

Exactly why does the CATO Institute think that this spells "Real Trouble" for the IPCC? After all, isn't it the position of the CATO Institute that there's NO 'global warning' whatsoever? So if the MINIMUM predicted increase is only 75% of what the last estimate was, that this is supposed to be a reason for gloating and finger waving...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[rb1957]

for much the same reason as the article that started this thread ... short term trends (heating or cooling) have no bearing on the long term, but both are met with cheers (and boos) from the respective camps.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TenPenny]

When I read a statement such as this:

The mathematics behind this modeling is actually quite sophisticated and one would be wrong to conclude he can fully comment without the specific training.

I am reminded of the article I read in 'Wired' magazine, about the math wiz who developed the equation to determine risk in mortgage bundles, which then allowed all the banks and Wall St firms to take large collections of garbage mortgages, bundle them together, and call them investments. Everyone went along with it, the bankers all made huge bonuses, the economy was destroyed, and the bankers got more huge bonuses.

Sophisticated models don't necessarily make garbage into gold, unless you're at the top of the pyramid of thieves.

 

[cranky108]

Do you really trust sooth sayers who clame to predict the future? Then why not crystal balls, or terot cards?

I was once told that figures don't lie, but that liers can figure.

Not that I want to call anyone a lier, but we all get some bad information from time to time.

It's not a bad practice to allow someone to admit they are wrong. And on the other hand, a 'see I told you so' is also rude.

 

[TenPenny]

I am not crazy enough to believe all the predictions of doom, and I'm also not crazy enough to believe that all of man's industrial activity has no effect on the planet.

You can all hate me, and call me a fool, because I don't fall into your little club.

 

[rb1957]

10p ... no one's calling any one names ... well, not much !? in fact your opinion resonants with many of us.

most of us appreciate conservation, and using our resources prudently. IMHO it'd be great to see the developing economies side-step the fossil fuel economy.

many of us question the value of making CO2 the "arch villian" of the play, and so question the benefits in spending our treasure to reduce it.

many question the science behind the pronouncements.

many will, no doubt, take exception to the above ...



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

I'm just saying to be a sceptic on news from common news sources, and anyone who proports to pridect the future. All statics should have a confadence factor, and if they don't, then I don't have confadence in the numbers.

Also consiter that well over 80% of people are able to make decisions with no facts at all. So many times propaganda is made up to sway the no fact crowd.

I do agree there maybe some human caused global warming, but not to the extent of sending my money to Al Gore, and his like.

The facts just don't prove it, and the pain is just too great. So part of it to me is just made up.

 

[rb1957]

"well over 80% of people" ... is that a statistic ? ... without a CF ?? ... smile !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati