Climate Metrics - Temperature Averaging 8

[TGS4]

In our most recent "climate change" discussion, I made a point about temperature averaging that seemed to be misunderstood. Because of its importance (in my opinion), I wanted to make its own thread.

It is clear to me that there is significant confusion about the cp of air and a global average temperature. Perhaps an example will clear things up:

I have two temperatures: -30°C (for argument's sake, let's say that the RH is 50%) and +30°C with an RH of 50%. The mathematical average of the temperatures is 0°C. However, based on the specific heat capacities:
[ul]
[li]the energy in 1 kg of the -30°C (243.15K) air is 1.005 [kJ/kg*K] * 1 [kg] * 243.15 [K] = 244.36575 kJ[/li]
[li]the energy in 1 kg of the +30°C (303.15K) air is 1.03 [kJ/kg*K] * 1 [kg] * 303.15 [K] = 312.2445 kJ.[/li]
[/ul]
Now, average the energies to get 278.305125 kJ. If you wanted an average temperature based on average energy (something that can actually be averaged), you are stuck in the backwards calculation of which value of specific heat capacity to use.
[ul]
[li]If you use 1.005 [kJ/kg*K], you get an "average temperature" of 276.92K or 3.77°C.[/li]
[li]If you use 1.03 [kJ/kg*K], you get an "average temperature" of 273.20K or -2.95°C.[/li]
[li]If you use the "average" of the specific heat capacities (1.005+1.03)/2=1.0175 [kJ/kg*K], then you get an "average temperature" of 273.52K or 0.37°C.[/li]
[/ul] (Note that these calculations are all at sea-level).

So, which "averaging" calculation is correct? What is the true average temperature? Even IF you know the instantaneous humidity coincident with the temperature reading, you still have a problem in the averaging. But, here's another problem to highlight it even more:

I have two temperatures: +30°C (for argument's sake, let's say that the RH is 10% because it's in Denver) and +30°C with an RH of 100% (Miami). The average of the temperatures is, obviously, 30°C, right? However, based on the specific heat capacities:
[ul]
[li]the energy in 1 kg of the Denver air at 30°C (303.15K) air is 1.01 [kJ/kg*K] * 1 [kg] * 303.15 [K] = 306.1512 kJ[/li]
[li]the energy in 1 kg of the Miami air at 30°C (303.15K) air is 1.056 [kJ/kg*K] * 1 [kg] * 303.15 [K] = 320.1264 kJ.[/li]
[/ul]
Now, average the energies to get 313.1388 kJ. If you wanted an average temperature based on average energy (something that can actually be averaged), you are still stuck in the backwards calculation of which value of specific heat capacity to use.
[ul]
[li]If you use 1.01 [kJ/kg*K], you get an "average temperature" of 310.04K or 36.89°C.[/li]
[li]If you use 1.056 [kJ/kg*K], you get an "average temperature" of 296.53K or 23.38°C.[/li]
[li]If you use the "average" of the specific heat capacities (1.01+1.056)/2=1.033 [kJ/kg*K], then you get an "average temperature" of 303.14K or 29.99°C.[/li]
[/ul]

Again, what's the real metric here. It takes 4.5% more "energy" to heat the Miami air up an additional degree as compared to the Denver air. If we are truly "worried" about energies and fluxes, then why are we even using temperatures at all?

I am most certainly NOT talking about trends or anything else (yet). I am talking about the most basic of metrics used. Why are we using an average temperature?

 

[rb1957]

someone in the pay of Big Oil would have as much to gain as someone in the pocket of Big Tobacco in denying smoking causes cancer.

of course you wouldn't be implying that all "denier"s are honest ... there's enough politics and grandstanding and all other manner of poop to go around (that some'll get attracted to some individuals).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

Don’t lose heart rb1957. These discussions can be exhausting at times - I’ve been close to throwing up my hands and saying “screw it”, as well (and I’m sure many here would have been glad had I done so). There’s so much trash out there, from Neil Young pretending to be a scientist to everything about Christopher Monckton. There’s people on both sides that pretend to have answers but really all they do is assert conjecture and are short on references and proper analysis. This is beyond frustrating for those that have a modest understanding and can be very confusing for those that don’t.

Whether you know it or not, you’ve outlined quite well the tactics used to argue against the climate change theory – smear doubt on everything. Even if the doubt doesn’t stand up to scrutiny or is easily explained away, the job of the “skeptic” is already done. People end up so confused, they don’t know what to believe. The natural conclusion then follows: “if I’m unsure on the conclusion, I’m sure as heck against the taxes!”. It is important to note, again, that skepticism of the theory does not predominately stem from questioning the science – it stems from the reluctance to increased taxes or restrictions on consumption. It is this bias which allows people to, rather flippantly, ignore/dismiss the piles of peer-reviewed literature on the subject after having read a few blog posts which support their view.

However, the actual scientific community isn’t nearly as torn as the media, some blogs or some politicians would have you believe. Although some details remain in question (you should note the number of scientists that feel the IPCC is far too passive), the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is a real threat. Although the piles of trashy articles out there (on both sides) is enough to make your head spin, that issue really is not there for the experts who spend their lives studying it. For those that feel this only further supports the conspiracy theory that the field is corrupt, then they are saying that this conspiracy involves:
- Thousands of climate scientists
- Pretty well every major scientific body
- Thousands of peer-reviewed papers
- Dozens of reputable journals
- Pretty well every head of state from the most powerful countries to the least powerful
- All of this corruption, lasting decade after decade
- It would be the single largest and most far reaching conspiracy in the history of humankind...in an era where information is the most readily available

Yes, many non-experts and a SMALL few experts are opposed to the theory. Many non-experts and a SMALL few experts were/are opposed to the evidence of the ill-effects of smoking. Many non-experts and a SMALL few experts were/are opposed to vaccinations. Many non-experts and a SMALL few experts were/are opposed to the theory of evolution/age of the planet. The tactics used by the contrarian groups is similar in all four cases.

And yes, consensus, on its own, doesn’t mean that much. I believe it’s place is to show people, such as yourself, that are bogged down by all the arguments and counterarguments, that this level of confusion is not nearly as apparent amongst experts who understand the issue. Aside from that, this is why I have stuck to using peer-reviewed literature, data and evidence to debunk/correct claims that have arisen. I believe the science speaks for itself, so I don’t need to ignore arguments or dismiss them out-of-hand. The anthropogenic climate change theory is a well-established narrative with multiple predicted effects. Independent, observable evidence, such as the vast number of points listed above, all agree with the theory. I should note that I haven’t included anything on changes in plant and animal behaviour, but there is extensive research on that front as well. Not only do the observable effects match the anthropogenic climate change theory but other theories (such as solar activity or orbital cycles) fail to predict many of these effects we’ve seen or predict effects that we haven’t seen.

I started out a doubter of the theory. I read and raised many of the same arguments that many here have done. I was not convinced that the evidence validated the imposed measures to counteract the changes. But then I dug into the issue in more depth. I read more extensively. I argued with people smarter than myself on the issue. The more I did that, the more my opinion changed.

Now, the more I read on WUWT, the more I debate with people, the more my agreement with the theory solidifies. This is because the more I’m forced to dig into the problem (such as the analysis of separated ENSO years or TGS4 bringing up interesting points such as humidity and same day trips to Washington), the more new information I learn and the more new information that I learn, the more confident I become in the theory.

This is why I’m in agreement with what zdas04 said about the need to have places like this to discuss the issue with people slightly educated on the matter (despite the fact that no one here is near being an expert). I think he’s spot on…although for slightly different reasons. Some of the contentions against the theory brought up here are great and can lead to some very interesting dialogue. Personally, in my research into these various contentions, I’ve learnt a great deal. My hope, in providing extensive responses, is that I can pass along some of that research to others. Whether I can change minds or not, I believe it brings a lot of things to light.

As you’ve been a great promoter of inquiry through some very interesting questions, I’d encourage you to stay involved. Certainly these debates wouldn’t be nearly as fruitful if it weren’t for your contributions.

 

[hokie66]

I am one of the fence-sitters who have only infrequently contributed to these discussions, yet have read and tried to absorb some of it. I think the global climate will definitely change, one way or the other. But I just can't see many of the proposed solutions having much benefit, and am not convinced that attempted prevention is a better approach than adaptation.

 

[rb1957]

i'm with you on that, hokie.

for all the talk, i don't see us significantly reducing CO2 output (what we in the developed world surrender, the emerging world will gobble up). i see it as a distraction from developing ways to adapt to climate change; and a hinderance to the developing world. and i find it odd that Canada is closing coal fired generating plants, but Germany is opening (that China is is to be expected).

if burning FF is the worst thing since "western civilisation" then it should be prohibited (like CHC and DDT) and we should adapt; and investing in energy production that doesn't involve CO2 (safe nukes, fusion). But we aren't acting like that, the worst IMHO we're doing is trading CO2 quotas with countries that'll never fill them (what's up with that?); and finding new types of FF.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TGS4]

Rconnor, thanks for at least acknowledging the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad popularum. And I have no doubt that there is a large number of published papers that "accept" the CO2-driver temperature hypothesis.

What I would really like to know, though, is how many papers explicitly demonstrate an anthropogenic fingerprint in the post-LIA warming. I don't care at all for the papers that pile on with a "we agree/accept this hypothesis", I want to know how papers positively demonstrate a link. I would even include in that listing any papers that demonstrate particular values of "equilibrium climate sensitivity".

I have never heard of such a survey - has anyone else?

 

[TomDOT]

Due to these threads, my concerns about the validity of the global warming theory have pretty well been answered, particularly now that the humidity/atmospheric energy balance are shown to coincide as well.

My concerns about the causality have not.

 

[rconnor]

TGS4, AR5 WG1 has 18 pages of references for the section on Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, alone. Furthermore, I referenced a link to a single data set on radiative imbalances that resulted in 418 publications from the study of the results. So no, I haven’t heard of a survey under those specific conditions but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a pile of data and papers on the matter.

I believe this is similar to GregLocock’s sentiment that the radiative imbalance was taken as an “axiom” by climate scientist. There seems to be a naivety to the research going on (and what an axiom is). Skeptics think that there is no more research on the basic principles and it’s all about “how can we tax people?” or “look what our fancy models show”. This is incorrect. Again, AR5 WG1 has 18 pages of references on radiative forcing alone. These references aren’t all from 1960, most are from 2000-present.

Some research does use past research as a starting point. Of course. Every field of science does this. This is not making a priori assumptions, it’s how science works. Before you build a bridge, do you repeat laboratory tests to calculate the gravitational constant? Of course not.

Now, the radiative imbalance is not nearly as “concrete” as the gravitational constant but that is why there is still piles of research going into it. But that shouldn’t stop researchers from using the most up-to-date and well-supported values we have to build upon. Heck, we don’t have a true understanding of the fundamental building blocks of physics – does that mean that all research in physics should stop until we address those? Furthermore, building upon past research acts as a feedback loop for the past research. Models are a great method for checking the radiative imbalances. You can turn the knob and see if the models do a better or worse job and reproducing observed trends. In fact a new paper, Sherwood et al 2014, is a good example of this. It shows that models with a lower sensitivity to the positive feedback effect of water vapour caused by CO2 induced temperature rise, do a worse job at reproducing historical temperatures than those with a higher sensitivity. (If you have an issue with “model accuracy” due to the “pause”, please refer to one of my 10 deconstructions of that argument)

Also, “argumentum ad popularum” is only a logical fallacy when it comes to subjective opinions. For example, “I asked 10 people what their favourite food was. 6 said pizza, 2 said hot dogs, 2 said spaghetti. Therefore, pizza is the best food. QED.” The “consensus” in climate change is, “thousands of peer-reviewed papers and multiple data sources studying different, independant aspects of climate agree with the anthropogenic climate change theory. A handful of blogs and ~1:100 peer-reviewed papers say otherwise. I have confidence that the theory is accurate.” For the layman, that doesn’t have knowledge in the area to review the science, this is a defensible position. Those with an interest and knowledge in the subject, can and should review the science for themselves.

I think some people wish to believe that a consensus in science is some sort of vote; it’s not. First, the body of evidence is developed that supports a position. Then, a “consensus” is formed based on the strength of the body of evidence. The more robust the body of evidence, the stronger the consensus. The stronger the consensus, the greater the confidence researchers have with using the past research as a starting point. That’s how science works. Climate science is no different.

I do love how people that use the “argumentum ad popularum fallacy” tend to reference the flat earth or geocentric debate as examples to prove their point. It is so naïve to the fact that the peer-review process didn’t exist back then. Nor does the church have nearly the influence over academia as it did then. Nor were the standards of evidence nearly as stringent back then. Nor was confirmation bias ever tested in experiments. It is grossly ignorant of the epistemological progress over the centuries and the development of the scientific method to think they are analogous.

Another common one is “look at how relativity proved Newtonian physics wrong!”. But it didn’t completely invalidate Newtonian physics. 99.9% of the time, Newtonian physics works just fine. If 99.9% of the time, the anthropogenic climate change theory is valid, then it’s doing pretty darn well. Or you hear “well, look at what quantum physics did to classical physics!”. Again, how many of you use quantum physics on a day-to-day basis? Classical physics works pretty darn well 99.99% of the time.

A better analogy for the “argumentum ad popularum” in the context of climate change is to compare it with anti-vaxxers, creationists or pro-tobacco lobbyists. It is within the realm of possibility that vaccinations could turn out to cause autism, that the earth could be 6000 years old or that tobacco really isn’t bad for you. Like climate change, the more I study the subject, the more I don’t believe in the contrarian viewpoint...but just because it is the contrarian viewpoint, doesn’t automatically imply that it’s wrong. If this is all you are trying to say, then I agree with you. If you’re trying to say that the fact that the vast majority of experts and papers published agree with the anthropogenic climate change theory doesn’t give the theory weight, you’re incorrect. That’s how science works.

TomDOT, glad to hear it (and thanks for posting this – it’s nice to hear people are actually absorbing some of the information!). Regarding causality – one step at a time. The first thing is addressing the “pause”. I’ve just finished my 10th detailed deconstruction of that argument on the other thread. I’d be happy to hear what your thoughts on the subject are as right now I’m either hearing repetitious gross misunderstandings of the science or silence.

 

[rb1957]

i don't think its fair to compare newton and relativity ... in newton's day it was pretty hard to go faster than say 40mph. it'd be better to compare Newton and Aristole, and the absolute change in understanding of how things move ... as big a change as earth-centered and helio-centered solar systems. and i think you'd agree that before Newton there was a concensus that Aristole was right.

Newton showed by repeatable experiments and by verified predictions that how he understood moving things was better than the existing explaination; thus he replaced Aristole. Just as relativity replaced newtonian physics, for the same reasons ... repeatable experiments and verifiable predictions. And in the fullness of time someone (Sheldon?) will develop a better model.

and so the problem with climate "science" ... i don't think there can be repeatable experiments; there can be predictions but the timescales we're looking at make verification hard. i think everyone agrees it's hard to predict the weather, and when the model predictions don't eventuate, well there's a change to the models. As there should be ! i'd've though the science in climate science was understanding the interactions and the mechanisms. i'll pose this ... how much would any climate scientist bet on the predictions of his model ? and at what sort of odds ? someone confident would wager $1m for the return of $1k ... ie a huge bet at very low odds; someone not so confident would bet $1k for the return of $1m.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TGS4]

Actually, rconnor, my perspective on agrumentum ad populum is more recent: ulcers and the theory of h. pylori (see here for the timeline). The consensus in modern medicine was that acid and stress caused duodenal ulcers. There was one set of researchers that examined a different cause: helicobacter pylori. These researchers (Warren and Marshall) were stymied in the "peer-reviewed" journals because their hypothesis was contrary to the "consensus". It took 15 years to turn the consensus around.

What's very interesting about the Galileo example, and the parallels to today, is not so much about the "science", but about the control of the governing authorities, their vested interests, and the money. (Let me start my saying that I do not believe in any sort of grand conspiracy or the like) Once the scientific hypothesis of anthropogenic CO2 CAUSING unprecedented and catastrophic warming left the scientific realm and entered the political realm, I think that it would be safe to say that it was co-opted by some with less-than-pure intentions. CAGW was a means-to-an-end for some politicians, who, in turn, provided positive feedback in the form of grant money to those whose research could "prove" CAGW and excluded those whose research didn't. Certainly, researchers who have found contrary evidence to CAGW have not been sentenced to house arrest for apostacy or heresy. But, they are shunned from publications ("We'll keep them out of the IPCC report, even if we have to change the definition of 'peer review'"). Again, I don't see any conspiracy to this, just the logical extension of the government/military-academia/industry complex as warned by Eisenhower in his farewell address.

I think that we can probably agree that our earth has increased in total energy in the atmosphere and hydrosphere in the last 100 years. I can even appreciate the radiative imbalance aspects (radiation, after all is the sole heat transport off the planet, and the primary source of heat to the planet). I can even acknowledge the radiative physics of the CO2 hypothesis, and I think that the science behind that is pretty solid. But making that leap to hypothesized positive feedbacks and projections for scenarios that we have no data for (the catastrophe part of CAGW), I just really have a hard time buying it. And I have laid out my issues with the ongoing "science" previously. Despite the seemingly overwhelming evidence, there are still major holes in quantification (due to measurement, averaging, etc) and attribution/causation.

And finally, to something personal. I am being asked to pay for something that I otherwise didn't have to before. I am being asked to part with my hard-earned dollars to prevent some future catastrophe that may or may not happen, and whether I part with these dollars or not, it may or may not happen regardless. So, yes, I do have a personal stake in this. Unlike the heliocentrism vs geocentrism debate in Galileo's time, which had zero impact on the everyday peasants, this debate involves every person on this planet. I'd rather spend the money on third-world vaccines, educating women in poor countries and helping to feed the hungry. Besides, you want to know what brings large populations out of poverty? Cheap energy!

Anyway, enough of a veer off the science. I want to know more about natural causes of climate change. I'd like to see 60 years of good ocean heat data. I'd like to see higher accuracy radiative imbalance measurements, ones where the error is less than the phenomenon we are measuring. I'd like to see atmospheric energy measurements including humidity effects replace temperature averaging. I'd like to see climate models with small discretization error spatially and temporally. I'd like to have measurements of TSI in a wide range of the radiation spectrum over several solar cycles. I'd like to know what caused the last ice age to start and what caused us to come out of it. I'd like to know what caused the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods and the little ice age. I want to know why we have never had run-away thermal events (cold or hot) in the geological record.

 

[rb1957]

there is quite a bit out there on the end of ice ages ... the idea is a small external orbital warming input started an internal greenhouse warming (releasing CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere) caused the icecaps to melt.

sounds reasonable. then i ask myself "how did the ice ages start?" if the green house warming accelerates, warming leads to more warming; what's the mechanism that turns it around?

again, my frustration with the literature. some claim that orbital effects are small, others say that in recent history orbital impacts account for a significant component on the warming seen ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

TGS4,

Good example to balance things out.

As you said, to some the difference could be that the anthropogenic climate change theory is much more politicized given the ramifications whether the theory is true or the theory is false. I would not argue with this.

I believe you brought in “climate gate” to emphasis this point. I would argue with that. I’ve talked at length about climate gate in the past and my hope is to not drag this conversation into another discussion on that but I would like to provide an important fact regarding the quote you provided:

both the papers referred to in that email were cited and discussed in AR4 (chapter 6 of AR4 WG1). So despite the context-less, tongue-in-cheek quote, the emails were included. I should note that “climate gate” occurred after AR4 WG1 so it wasn’t the exposure that forced the IPCC to include those papers.

To me the crucial difference between the ulcer analogy and anthropogenic climate change is that the resistance to the climate change theory does not include a credible counter-theory, merely doubt over the causation. As you and others have said, you don’t doubt that there is increasing amounts of heat being accumulated within our climate. Some will add “but climate has changed before”. Of course, but this is not a counter-theory – you need a mechanism that can accurately describe the observable changes in our climate. This is the subject I want to discuss in more depth next, but before I do, I need to ensure that the “pause” argument is dead. We can’t discuss causation if people keep saying “the warming is over!” - which is demonstrably false.

 

[zdas04]

As you and others have said, you don’t doubt that there is increasing amounts of heat being accumulated within our climate. Some will add “but climate has changed before”. Of course, but this is not a counter-theory – you need a mechanism that can accurately describe the observable changes in our climate.

Why? If I say "the earth is only 61 years old because that is as long as I've been here". Do you need a "counter-theory" to say "BS"? I say that computer models cannot prove anything, so any evidence of a causality between man's activities and climate change that relies on a computer model is simply as non-convincing as my statement above about the age of the earth. Unadulterated data can show where we've been, but it cannot "prove" where we are going. If it could, then there wouldn't be so many people who fail to make money in the Stock market with their complex computer models. I feel that I can (and do) say that if the foundation of a body of work is inadequate, then the body of work is inadequate.

Go ahead and post a 30,000 word rebuttal with dozens of links to papers that rely on computer models. I won't read them again.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

zdas04,

The earth is 61 years old.

I say that carbon dating cannot prove anything, so any evidence between carbon dating and the age of the earth is simply as non-convincing as my statement above about the anthropogenic climate change theory. Unadulterated data can show where we are, but it cannot “prove” where we’ve been. If it could, then there wouldn’t be so many people who fall to predict what happened before the Big Bang. I feel that I can (and do) say that if the foundation of a body of work is inadequate, then the body of work is inadequate.

Go ahead and post a 30 word rebuttal with dozens of improvable anecdotes and no links to papers what so ever. I won’t read them again.

(GregLocock, being the resident expert, how was my satire this time?)

 

[rb1957]

i don't think the scientific method imposes the requirement to have an alternative hypothesis to explain things. if an experiment fails repeatedly, if a prediction is missed, then the theory is abandoned or at best modified.

i don't think "denier" can prove an alternative causality, i don't think they have to. i think all "deniers" are saying is that the models, as good as they are, are not reliable/accurate/real.

as i posted above, how much would a climate scientist bet on his model's predictions ? and i don't mean "what'll the weather be in NYC on the 21st April 20xx" i'd take a prediction like "the running 10yr average will increase xdeg/decade over a specific time period, let's say the '20s".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - I am going to agree with David on this. I believe that the onus is on the proponents of a hypothesis to positively demonstrate the evidence for their hypothesis. I will certainly cling to the "climate has changed before" approach, unless and until a positive hypothesis can likewise be demonstrated regarding the causation of the prior changes.

Regarding my climate-gate (stupid name, BTW) quote, indeed you are correct that the papers mentioned were included. However, trying to demonstrate that other papers were excluded is equivalent to proving a negative. It does, however, definitely show the mens rea of some of the active participants.

Also, although we can agree that the entire earth's system appears to be accumulating energy, I think that we also have to acknowledge that the atmosphere is NOT the repository of this energy. If the metric (flawed though it may be) is air temperatures, multiple metrics are indeed showing no increase in temperature...

 

[rconnor]

There are two different things here. They are being conflated but they are certainly not the same:

1) In order to hypothesize a counter-theory, you need a mechanism. Therefore, “climate has changed before” is not a counter-theory. (what I was originally saying and still remains true)
2) In order to disprove a theory, you need to conclusively demonstrate that the predictions of the theory do not agree with observations. Therefore, you do not need a counter-theory to disprove a theory. (what you are arguing and I agree with that)

However, as has been demonstrated 11 times, a short term hiatus in the warming of surface temperatures is expected during La Nina dominated periods. Furthermore, these periods should come with decreasing rates of OHC in the upper ocean and increasing rates of OHC in the deep ocean. That is exactly what we are seeing. Therefore, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that the predictions of the theory do not agree with observations. Quite the opposite – without some sort of energy imbalance, you’d expect to see OHC oscillate between ENSO periods above and below a reference point (+ve anomalies and –ve anomalies). The fact you see steady increases in OHC supports the theory.

This (alone) merely get’s us to correlation. I’d love to discuss causation vs correlation more with you but you begin to see how zdas04’s blind and unsupported rejections are baseless and his refusal to acknowledge counter-arguments makes any discourse impossible.

To understand what I have to deal with, let’s continue my last post. Try and convince me that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Try it!

I’ll either reject the data as incomplete (after all, you’re missing links in the fossil record) or distrust the method (after all, carbon dating is corrupted and not accurate) or dismiss peer reviewed papers (after all, the scientific community is just bowing to the “old earth” shrine and blocks any REAL research from being published). I’ll provide just as many references to support my claim as zdas has (zero…maybe I’ll reference the odd Young Earth blog here and there). If you write out a comprehensive, well-referenced rebuttal, I won’t bother reading it. That’s how you ensure you win an argument without actually engaging in it. I can conclude, with absolute certainty, that the theory the earth is 4.5 billion years old is wrong (sorry to the 62+ year olds, your anecdotal evidence has no merit).

This is not analogous to people such as TGS4 or rb1957, hence why we can have meaningful conversations.

 

[GregLocock]

One might observe that being nagged rarely results in positive communication. If I want to be moaned at I can go into a meeting full of managers. At least they pay me and sometimes useful things happen.

Anyway, I agree, ENSO could result in the deviance of the models from the real world. However, the models seem to have been calibrated without ENSO in the past. Yet the short term fidelity of those models is heralded as proof of their accuracy. As I'm sure you know from engineering, if you chase the noise in a process then the statistics of that process get worse, not better. So it seems to me that rather than tuning the climate models to follow the ups and and downs of ENSO they'd be more likely to succeed if they took a decadal viewpoint, and of course the same from now on, until they develop ocean models of respectable accuracy.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

Sorry to disappoint you rconnor, but I have no interest in trying to prove the age of the earth. It's been here my whole life and my grandparents told me (anecdote) that it had been here all of their lives. AND there is no one trying to take my money, my standard of living, or my ability to pay my electric bill based on an interpretation of the output of computer models setting the age of the earth at 4.5 billion, 6,000, or 61 years.

That is what you are simply not understanding. If it weren't for political consequences this would be an interesting discussion and possibly marginally useful. But the President of the United States has directed the EPA to fundamentally end coal-fired power plants. The talking heads are saying that it is likely that his State of the Union address tonight will call for some form of carbon tax. Regardless of any consensus, the data, the models, the theories do not support this. In spite of the terror-mongering by the IPCC, by the media, and by the "Hollywood Elite" (whatever that means), the state of this science is not adequate to support these policies. It is just ones and zeros in a computer model. About the same overall validity as a game of "Ms Pacman" (maybe "World of Warcraft").

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[JohnRBaker]

For what it's worth:

http://news.yahoo.com/watch-63-years-climate-change-one-horrifying-gif-154500932.html

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.

 

[TGS4]

From the article:

“While one year or one season can be affected by random weather events, this analysis shows the necessity for continued, long-term monitoring.”

I couldn't agree more.

What I found most interesting was the non-homogeneous nature of the changes. Such observations sure puts to further questioning any proxy-temperature reconstructions from isolated sites (Yamal anyone?).

Perhaps in another 63x2 years we might have enough data to start being able to properly test any hypotheses about our global climate. I look forward to having great-grandchildren involved in such truly scientific endeavors.