inconvenient truth- errors? 34

[davefitz]

Has anyone found any factual errors in the Movie "Inconvenient Truth" re: CO2 and expected increase in temperature?

 

[LCruiser]

"the Hadley center is part of the British government that has no financial stake in skewing the results one way or another"

Surely you jest.

 

[GregLocock]

Yeah, sorry electricpete, the British government has a stance on global warming that is NOT science driven, it is primarily political. They pay the Hadley Centre.

Now on the other hand, I doub the Met Office is actually going to lie, directly, but they certainly don't seem to investigate the negative arguments with much enthusiasm.

You should also be aware that the huge increase in the climatology budget in academia is largely based on global warming. So, all of the graduates who now work for the Met Ofiice will have been brought up in an environment where global warming is the raison d'etre for their degree courses.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Zapster]

An interesting perspective on what “Studies Prove.” See part I through III of “Studies Prove”.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml

Whereas this article is not specifically about global warming it does touch on the issue and hits soundly on the problem with government and university studies.

 

[JAE]

Yes, Zapster, I think there's a lot of folks who get sucked into "studies prove". Not to say that anything listed above is then automatically wrong...but there's value in skepticism whenever there's a politically charged, and motivated debate - on both sides of the issues.

Another link - more specifically about global warming:

Boudreax Article

 

[scotty7]

I work in the Aerospace industry. If we have a potential issue with the aircraft design, we have to make sure the problem is managed. So if an issue could cause a catastrophic failure of the aircraft, we have to take every possible step to prevent it, by maintenance, lifing, redesign etc. Therefore, if a potential problem is life-threatening, it can be shown by actions that the probability of it happening is extremely remote.

If we apply this to global warming, then we can agree the following:
Something is happening.
We don't know for sure what is causing it.
A potential cause is human emissions.
The consequence of global warming could be catastrophic.

If this was an aircraft, we would have to do something, not just carry on with a "well, it might not happen" attitude. The potential consequences are just too dramatic to ignore.

 

[LCruiser]

scotty7 -

You're mixing apples and oranges. Or, rather, you're ignoring oranges. The point is not whether or not we should do something about global warming per se, although warming in the past has always been associated with flourishing civilization. It's cooling that's been the problem.

The point is that there are many other contributing factors to increasing temperature, such as land use changes decreasing transpiration, natural variability, other GHG's, etc.

The facts that the effect of CO2 on heat retention in the atmosphere is logarithmic, and that CO2 is the base of the food chain and may have a hand in curing problems due to land use changes, means we need to investigate the true causes and effects through *realistic* modeling - which includes accurate regional representations, before we choke our productivity. We are a long way from that point. What climate scientists have now is very simplistic and in no way represents reality.

 

[JAE]

scotty7 - your last point:

The consequence of global warming could be catastrophic.

I just wonder about this. Yes, there is the potential for some serious issues but we engineers (and hopefully the public) always weigh the probabilities against the risk/rewards of any action.

What I've seen in terms of Global warming is a huge over sensitivity to a totally unknown risk to the point of spending enormous amounts of money on "repairs" that we don't even know will resolve the risk that we can't even define.

This isn't wisdom. It's a compulsive over-reaction and to make things worse, politics gets involved.

 

[melone]

With groups of people hell-bent on exterminating other groups or people, there appear to be greater, more immediate issues than global warming.

 

[electricpete]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/15275602.htm

I thought of this tendency when I read the results of a recent Pew Research Center poll. The subject in question was global warming, and responses were broken down along political lines. Of those polled, 81 percent of Democrats said there is solid evidence that temperatures are rising, compared to 58 percent of Republicans; 54 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans say human activity is the root cause. That is a huge difference of opinion on a subject that, one would think, should be understood mainly through its science.

I suspect most of the people polled got their information from their favored media outlets rather than reading peer-reviewed scientific articles. If you read The Wall Street Journal or watch Fox News, you are far more likely to question the existence of global warming. If the New York Times and NPR are your organs of influence, you will likely believe we have a serious problem on our hands.

This is an interesting phenomenon. It should make us all think twice about the facts and relationships we assume to be true. Especially if we have not payed close attention to the sources of our information.

Pielke I agree is held up as an expert by many. I'll talk about him some more when I have the time.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

"54 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans say human activity is the root cause. "

And again, there are many other possible reasons than CO2 if human activity is the root cause.

Cutting CO2 emissions could be cutting our own throats. Certainly blaming the world's woes on CO2 is.

 

[electricpete]

ok, let's talk Pielke.

Look at the front page of his website:

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

"More Information on the Geophysical Research Letters Article Recent Cooling of the Upper Ocean" dated August 14, 2006

After excerpting several pieces from the article, Pielke sums it up for us as follows:

This is a very important observational study of changes in climate system heat content. While the models predict a general montonic increase in ocean heat content (e.g. see (Figure 1) ), the new observations in Lyman et al 2006 show an important decrease. The explanation of this temporal change in the radiative imbalance of the Earth’s climate system is a challenge to the climate science community. It does indicate that we know less about natural- and human-climate forcings and feedbacks than concluded in the IPCC Reports.

That is the full extent of his front-page discussion and summary of this article (maybe he provides more details elsewhere, but not on the front page). The implication is that 1 - this observed cooling trend is significant in the long-term 2 - this is something new that brings into question the conclusions of the legitimate scientists of governmentally-sponsored credible organizations such as Hadley, NASA, NOAA etc.

But quite the contrary, 1 - the historical trend is up and down with a long-term rise 2- this has been known for a long time.

See Hadley Center's comments on page 32 of 71 here

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/climate_greenhouse.pdf

"The large decadal variability shown in the observations cannot be simulated by the models"

See also NASA Hansen's comments on page 2 of 5 here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

"Total ocean heat storage in that period [1955-1998] is consistent with the climate model simulations, but the models do not reproduce reported decadal fluctuations

Imho this is a clear misrepresentation of the big picture with intent to mislead. If anyone doubts that Pielke can achieve his intent to mislead folks, they need only look earlier in this thread to see the erroneous conclusions people draw after reading Pielke's site.

Roger could have told us that 1 - the historical data contains up and down swings and therefore a current downswing doesn't change anything in the long-term prognosis and 2- mainstream sciences acknowledges this variability, but he chose instead to sensationalize it as a new finding to undermine mainstream scientific predictions. That's not surprising since one of Roger's recurring themes is throwing stones at the models of others. Ironically, I don't see that he has published any of his own model results.

It seems to me that Pielke is more deeply involved in the political arena than the scientific arena.

Look at the mission statement of the Center Directed by Roger Pielke Sr.:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/

Strategic Intent #1 - Help guide the University of Colorado in educating the next generation of science and technology policy decision makers.

Strategic Intent #2 - Help make the nation’s science portfolios more responsive to societal needs. Example areas include climate and global change, disasters, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and renewable/sustainable energy

Strategic Intent #3 - Provide various means for people with differing perspectives to discuss research and practice related to science in its broader societal context.

Strategic Intent #4 - Build a sustainable, diverse and productive institution at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

I didn't see research listed there (did I miss it?). Seems to me that involvement in policy-making is the goal of these folks.

Then there' this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke

His son Roger A. Pielke (Jr) is a political scientist.

And finally one need only browse the websites linked by LCruiser to as further evidence of the political activism of RP1 and RP2. You will find many more articles discussing the politics than the science.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that political and policy discussion is not important. But it seems to me these guys make living as political animals masquerading as scientists.

And finally as a matter of curiosity, I would like to see an accounting of the donations that are plainly solicited on their website.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

Also I see at

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

the following"
[quote}The Climate Science Weblog has clearly documented the following conclusions:...
In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change. [/quote]

I saw the claim but I didn't see the proof. Is there proof of this claim somewhere in that website?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

It looks like this is not an isolated mischaracterization. I see this on

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

"Big Time Gambling With Multi-Decadal Global Climate Model Predictions" by Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roger A. Pielke Jr. August 8, 2006

There is some emerging empirical evidence to suggest, however, that the concerns expressed here are worth consideration. The recent dramatic cooling of the average heat content of the upper oceans, and thus a significant negative radiative imbalance of the climate system for at least a two year period, that was mentioned in the Climate Science weblog posting of July 27, 2006, should be a wake-up call to the climate community that the focus on predictive modeling as the framework to communicate to policymakers on climate policy has serious issues as to its ability to accurately predict the behavior of the climate system. No climate model that we are aware of has anticipated such a significant cooling, nor is able to reproduce such a significant negative radiative imbalance.

The same old thing.... recent dramatic cooling.... horrible models (what does Roger's model predict btw?).

Sorry to harp on one example. I am not immersed in the tremendous details of the debate like these guys are. I am 100% sure Roger Pielke is fully aware of all the facts I stated. As to why he would choose to present this new finding repeatedly without the most important context (long-term average increase with short-term ups and downs), I can come to no conclusion other than he has an agenda and full accounting of relevant facts is not part of his agenda.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

I guess I missed it. What facts did you present? Why do the Pielke's have to have models? There are lots of models out there. Since they're all different, which one is right (or is any one right)? Models are based on assumptions - assumptions manufactured to fit the data. Ensemble climate models are averages of assumptions.

I'm not sure what your point is - the Hadley Centre needs a crisis for future funding. Don't you understand that?

 

[melone]

But using conclusions from faulty models (statistics) does not a crisis make!

 

[electricpete]

I guess I missed it. What facts did you present?

Page 32 of 71

http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2005/climate_greenhouse.pdf

shows the historical trend of ocean temperature. It is a long-term upward trend with shorter-term ups and downs. Both Hadley and NASA acknowledged long ago (see links in my post 19 Aug 06 1:08) that their models do not predict the shorter term ups an downs... with some speculation that it may be caused by incomplete sampling of the oceans).

Now comes Pielke dicussing the results of an article finding a recent downturn. He omits the fact that the known long-term trend is up with shorter term ups and downs and that the real scientists admit their models don't show that. Instead he presents is as if it is something new that sheds great doubt on the models. Without the important contexts, one could easily incorrectly conclude:
1 - This is new information that the scientists are unaware of.
2 - This represents a long-term cooling trend.

I was trying to be polite but the comments I was referring to earlier in this thread are your own: "The fact that the ocean is now cooling, in concert with natural variability theory, is something the sites electricpete quotes will not mention." You present this as if the fact that it is now cooling is something different than we have already seen in our history (long-term upward trend with shorter term ups and downs) and further as if this would be something new that Hansen and Hadley Center don't know about. It would be a logical (but incorrect) conclusion if your source of fact was Pielke.

There are lots of models out there. Since they're all different, which one is right (or is any one right)?

The most detailed models and most respected models tend to support the projections of Hadley and the ipcc. The illusion of mass dissention comes from numerous scientists that don't even have models but are very vocal in their disagreement of those that do. It's worthwhile to note that if you have a big respected model, anything you come up with tend to be important news that have the potential to advance the state of the art of our understanding (unless contradictory evidence is found that may indicate a need for revision of the model). In contrast if you are trying to make news and all you have is your opinion, you won't make much of a splash saying you think the respected models are correct, but anyone can get airtime claiming this big models are wrong.

Why do the Pielke's have to have models? There are lots of models out there. Since they're all different, which one is right (or is any one right)?

I thought it was important to provide the context that the expert you are citing doesn't have any model of his own, he's just throwing rocks at other people's models. In other words, he can't support any different prediction, he can only cast doubt on the best available predictions that we have. So there is no scientific basis from any of Pielke's objections to adjust the average prediction to a more optimistic value. The best we can do is pay close attention to the uncertainty. These are the best available models mankind has to project the climate change. The fact that there is uncertainty can make you feel better or worse about the situation, depending on your predisposition.

melone - what is the basis for your comments other than your opinion?

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[electricpete]

melone - in other words, what basis do you have for concluding Hadley's models are faulty.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[LCruiser]

electricpete

One of the biggest questions we have about warming is the effect of clouds - and it's a big question. Why, during the Pliocene for example, was the equator roughly the same temperature as now but the north pole much warmer? Why does there seem to be a max surface temperature over the ocean of less than 100 deg F?

Until these questions, among many others (not the least of which is flora response to increased CO2) are answered, what makes you think *any* model can possibly be correct? That's the point.

It's not whose model is the best, it's is *any* model good.

 

[melone]

Based on what's been stated here, the models are only valid for "short" periods of time. Perhaps, I'll spend the time and re-read all of the information, but probably not. This issue is so politically charged, the likelihood of finding unbiased information is virtually 0.

Therefore, my only option is to make a decision based on what I BELIEVE is right. I BELIEVE we should reduce our polution. Those BELIEFS are based on my personal ethics / morals and biases. My BELIEFS have nothing to due with the "facts" that are provided in this or any other forum.

Have fun arguing the validity of the models!

 

[25362]

May be somebody has already mentioned it, anyway..., the Sahara desertification has been attributed to a change of half a degree in the 23.45[sup]o[/sup] angle of declination of the tropics caused by the gravitational pull of the planets in the solar system over the last 9,000 years. This fact has always been considered a dominant cause for major changes in Earth's climate.

Even the elliptical path of Earth around the Sun changes to totally circular (perihelion=aphelion) every 21,000 years or so.

I feel these "external" factors and others however small, should be brought into consideration when making models of future weather predictions.