"Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 3 42

[jmw]

At 273 posts I guess the time has come to request the old thread archived and continue in a new thread and it is in this thread that I think the latest news has its proper place.

The world has never seen such freezing heat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Oh dear,
just what do you have to do to lose the last shreds of credibility?

Tell me honestly folks, how many engineers would still have a job with a track record like Hansen?
Actually, perhaps we'd better not answer that because I suspect the answer is that in any profession there are complete f***-ups who will never be brought to book simply because the credibility of the people who have believed them for so long is also at risk and once one goes then the domino effect comes into being.

I guess that it is only when NASA closes that we will see and end to the career of this fine purveyor of temperature data but we can be sure he will turn up in some other role on the IPCC or as an acolyte of Nobel Laureate, Al Gore.

Success, it seems, depends not on getting it right but on notoriety and why else would so many deadly politicians earn so much on the speaking circuit once they have finally left office and while their dark deeds are still fresh in everyone's mind?


You know I can't help wondering, if it weren't for those "Chads" I wonder what sort of a condition the world would be in now? And, if we are in dire financial straits now, what kind of position would we otherwise be in?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[b2theory]

Cranky108 (Electrical)

The problem with models is the same as what they say about computers, garbage in, garbage out. Who, other than the database keeper, knows what is, and isen't in these models.

As has been said,'Trust but verify'. We haven't verified anything yet.

You mean that you haven't verified anything. These models are open source and widely available as part of the publishing and peer review process. People that are qualified to review them do. They are constantly improving.

civilperson (Structural)

My personal observation:.....

CajunCenturion (Computer)

Hey, it's snowed in Lafayette, LA last week - first time in 20 years.

Your anecdotal observations are irrelevant. Be a better scientist. If you have an engineering degree worth anything this was a prerequisite.


LCruiser (Civil/Environme)

As civilperson says, it is getting colder. The temperature trend this century continues to be downward by the only objective measure we have, which is MSU (satellite). Every year since the turn of the century has been colder than 1998.

Why would you argue an 8 year trend against an undisputed 100 plus year trend?

 

[LCruiser]

The 100 year record is not "undisputed" by any stretch of the imagination. Urban Heat Island "corrections" are extremely subjective. The only objective record is the satellite record.

2008 tropical temperatures 5th coolest in the last 30 years.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687

 

[LCruiser]

P.S. models may be "improving" but they still can't even predict that hot air rises.

Don't EE's have to take Thermodynamics?

 

[b2theory]

LCruiser (Civil/Environme)

The 100 year record is not "undisputed" by any stretch of the imagination. Urban Heat Island "corrections" are extremely subjective. The only objective record is the satellite record.

No they are not. You want them to be disputed. In no meaningful way is NOAAs data wrong.

But since you wanted satellite data, we have plenty of that as well.

LCruiser (Civil/Environme)

P.S. models may be "improving" but they still can't even predict that hot air rises.

Don't EE's have to take Thermodynamics?


Yes, yes they can.

read the section on Benard cells.
[

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Membres/Fabrice.Neyret/publis/EWAS97.pdf

]

or you could read:

MODELING OF BUOYANCY-DRIVEN FLOW AND HEAT TRANSFER FOR AIR IN A HORIZONTAL ANNULUS: EFFECTS OF VERTICAL ECCENTRICITY AND TEMPERATURE-DEPENDENT PROPERTIES; Numerical Heat Transfer Part A: Applications, Volume 42, Number 6, 1 November 2002 , pp. 603-621(19)


Don't post blogs. Qualified people with valid ideas publish.

 

[civilperson]

The graphs of temperature from b2theory have a vertical axis scale of approximately +/- 0.5 degree C. This much accuracy is shown with curve fit line when the vertical gradient in still air can be 1 degree per foot and the water temperature variation with depth is 10 times greater. Horizontal distance variations can also exist as well as time variations as either daily or seasonal variation. Lots of assumptions from thin differentials over a century of data from a variety of recorders with calibration techniques that have never been tested across the decades.

 

[LCruiser]

b2theory,

That is just absolutely ludicrous. You can check the published studies behind this page if you want, but I have and this page is an accurate representation. If satellite temps are accurate, those two numbers (UAH MSU and RSS MSU) will be close. How close are the other numbers? If you think they are objective, I think you need to redefine objective since the others are all over the board:

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

 

[b2theory]

civilperson (Structural)

The graphs of temperature from b2theory have a vertical axis scale of approximately +/- 0.5 degree C. This much accuracy is shown with curve fit line when the vertical gradient in still air can be 1 degree per foot and the water temperature variation with depth is 10 times greater. Horizontal distance variations can also exist as well as time variations as either daily or seasonal variation. Lots of assumptions from thin differentials over a century of data from a variety of recorders with calibration techniques that have never been tested across the decades.

Dear lord. That is your criticism? When you look at the Farmer's Almanac do you honestly start thinking about the temperature gradient differentials of the myriad of weather stations and observations required to compile it?

I guess we should through all of the NOAA data out. They obviously have no idea what they are doing.

 

[LCruiser]

b2theory,

There are two, and only two, types of error: random and bias. You are confusing the two. Ground based temperatures are frequently taken in urbanized areas. That introduces bias errors from UHI.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

 

[b2theory]

LCruiser (Civil/Environme)

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

Junk Science....see the fifth paragraph of my original post.

Find me current and defended article in the Journal Science, Nature, or AIP that says one of the following.

1) CO2 concentrations have not increased by over 100 ppm in the past 150 years.

2) Increase in CO2 will not lead to an increase in surface temperature.

This is the null hypothesis of the climate change consensus. The first person who can disprove one of these points wins a Nobel Prize.

You would also make me a very happy person. If we could exploit our coal and gas reserves with out consequences I would be thrilled.

You have convinced me that you are simply a contrarian. As evidenced by your comments about fluid modeling, You don't strike me as someone who engages in honest dialog. So I am done responding.

 

[LCruiser]

b2theory,

That's fine. If you don't want to listen to reason you can follow the leader like most people, which is what the Al Gores of the world are counting on. Of course CO2 levels have risen. Of course an increase in CO2 will tend to increase temperature. However, is it an overriding concern? That's what *you* need to prove to yourself - or, it appears you just accept the dogma - "drank the koolaid". Well, sorry, but temps have been going down for the last 10 years. After all the alarmists have been saying that the increases in CO2 are going to cook us, it's been cooling. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Tomfh]

Lcruiser,

Convection orginates on the microscale and thus is parametrized in the models. I don't quite understand your obsession with the fact that the models don't generate convection from first principles. I mean, what next, a rant that finite element analysis can't explain the origin of elasticity?

 

[LCruiser]

Tomfh,

"Global Warming" theoretically holds more heat closer to the surface, correct? More heat at the surface should cause more convection, correct? Not in the models...

 

[CajunCenturion]

Your anecdotal observations are irrelevant.

Quite right. Direct observation has no role in science.

Why would you argue an 8 year trend against an undisputed 100 plus year trend?

Why would you argue a 100 plus year trend when you've got almost 5000 years at your disposal? Looking back over that time frame, you'll see that temperature is cyclical, and there was been at least two times over that interval, pre-industrial times in fact, when the average temperatures were higher than they are today. Further, we're coming off one the most extreme cold periods in the last 5000 years, and the warming trend has been on going for roughly 400 years. The current warming cycle began two hundred years prior to industrialization, and the rate of warming has not increased during the industrial period. Yes, the CO[sub]2[/sub] levels have increased dramatically during the last 200 years, but the rate of global warming has not.

Why would you want to use only a 100 year trend on the upslope of a, so far, 400 year warming cycle to predict the demise of a cycle that been active for at least 5000 years?

I am always rather shocked when I find Engineers on the this side of the argument. It seems clear to me that you all should have received the type of education required to do a high level analysis of the topic or at least trust the peer review process to ultimately give you an increasingly accurate picture of what's going on.

Any good engineer, or any other reasonable person for that matter, will tell you that it's very simple. When politics and big money are involved, science and objectivity usually take a back seat, especially to those preaching doom and gloom, for they are the ones who usually end up with the money.

Be a better scientist. If you have an engineering degree worth anything this was a prerequisite.

As you indicated in your fifth paragraph, you are quick to dismiss and disparage those who hold views different than yours. I'm amazed how quickly you dismiss the signatories to this letter.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

Your quick and easy use of ad hominem attacks sadly speaks volumes towards your own practice of science.

Personally, I'm glad that you're passionate about your beliefs and are willing to stand up for what you believe to be an objective and scientific understanding of this extremely complex situation. But please keep in mind that this is an extremely complex situation and one that we, as a scientific community, know very little about. Although we're learning more and more, we've just scratched the surface in our knowledge and understanding of all the factors and inter-relationships involved. It only stands to reason that there will be varying opinions about the topic. Let's hope that we're no too quick to dismiss others out of our own ignorance and arrogance.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[owg]

CajunCenturion wrote:
"When politics and big money are involved, science and objectivity usually take a back seat, especially to those preaching doom and gloom, for they are the ones who usually end up with the money."

It might be instructive if you could identify some of the cases to which you refer. The cases would preferably have the following properties.

1) A scientific theory is put forward by a large group of scientists. They offer proof.
2) The theory requires major spending to solve the problem or take advantage of the opportunity.
3) The money is spent,the scientists are praised, their supporters get rich, but the problem does not go away or the benefits do not show up.
4) Subsequent research proves that the theory was bogus.

I am still trying to decide whether or not I believe the global warming story. I hope the approach that I suggest may shed some light on the subject.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[rb1957]

personally, i'd prefer Eng-tips to stop cashing in "global warming" by removing the google ads on this thread.

to owg, maybe the CFC's issue is an example ... i've "heard" that solar storms were mostly responsible for the depletion of the ozone. the difference is that in this case the costs were reasonably absorbed (by the consumer), and i think it was probably a reasonable response to a situation we hadn't expected (CFCs at high altitude).

 

[Unotec]

I do not support AGW, there might have been global warming effected by natural causes, but as far as anthropogenic ones... well...
My problem is that the science behind AGW is very iffy, to say the least, and the money spent on grants, etc... would be far better spent elsewhere within the environmental issues we have. Pressing more immediate and tangible issues.

And yeah, the asbestos, CFC, etc... scams have left me very skeptic of these full blown scares

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[b2theory]

CajunCenturion (Computer)

Why would you argue a 100 plus year trend when you've got almost 5000 years at your disposal? Looking back over that time frame, you'll see that temperature is cyclical, and there was been at least two times over that interval, pre-industrial times in fact, when the average temperatures were higher than they are today. Further, we're coming off one the most extreme cold periods in the last 5000 years, and the warming trend has been on going for roughly 400 years. The current warming cycle began two hundred years prior to industrialization, and the rate of warming has not increased during the industrial period. Yes, the CO2 levels have increased dramatically during the last 200 years, but the rate of global warming has not.

Why would you want to use only a 100 year trend on the upslope of a, so far, 400 year warming cycle to predict the demise of a cycle that been active for at least 5000 years?




The data to compare climate data withing the Delta T anomaly seen in the past 100 years is only reasonably accurate back 1700 years. Based on that data, the past 50 years have been the warmest in history.




Any good engineer, or any other reasonable person for that matter, will tell you that it's very simple. When politics and big money are involved, science and objectivity usually take a back seat, especially to those preaching doom and gloom, for they are the ones who usually end up with the money.




No. Only a very cynical person would say such a thing. That is what the peer review process is for. That is why science demands transparent methods that yield reproducible results. That is how orbital mechanics were developed in the shadow of extremely critical and threatened religious institutions.




As you indicated in your fifth paragraph, you are quick to dismiss and disparage those who hold views different than yours. I'm amazed how quickly you dismiss the signatories to this letter.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

Your quick and easy use of ad hominem attacks sadly speaks volumes towards your own practice of science.





I dismiss the multiple attempts to cobble together large groups of "experts" to sign documents that refute an evidence supported theory. That is criticism of a failed attempt at an argument from authority. That is not an ad hominem attack.


But please keep in mind that this is an extremely complex situation and one that we, as a scientific community, know very little about. Although we're learning more and more, we've just scratched the surface in our knowledge and understanding of all the factors and inter-relationships involved. It only stands to reason that there will be varying opinions about the topic. Let's hope that we're no too quick to dismiss others out of our own ignorance and arrogance.




If the critics of the consensus position have something to add to the science then they can publish. Their ideas will be evaluated on their merits. If they are proven correct they would turn our understanding of climate dynamics on its head. They would also clear the way for a long overdue expansion of our use of coal and natural gas energy supplies. I would love this to be the case. It would make our challenges so minor compared to reality.

Most don't have anything worth publishing. Instead they go directly to non-peer reviewed publishing methods and activism. Some of them have published. None of the published challenges to fundamental premise of climate change have stood up, period.

I am not quick to dismiss ideas I haven't seen over and over and over again as completely invalid. The problem is that there is a tremendous amount of adversary content which is readily accessible to people who want to arm themselves for arguments against the consensus view on climate change. People such as LCruiser absorb Junk Science and Climate Audit like a sponge. They then walk in here, and everywhere, and parrot argument after argument. I simply don't have the time to deal with people that are simply jousting without ever yielding obviously erroneous points. He cites content created Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have no credibility or training in the fields upon which they claim to be the only reasoned opposition. The only thing that has elevated them from the obscurity of their basements is the political agenda of non-scientific gatekeepers at the Congressional level and higher.

My big personal problem with this particular thread, as I originally stated, is that you are people that should know better. You have the training. You may not do research and development on a daily basis, but you understand the experimental grounding of the knowledge you use in your day to day work. You understand the methods by which the equations landed in your text book.

I have always considered engineering to be applied science in its purest form. Unfortunately it has convinced me that Engineers are terrible scientists. If you have a question about a scientific debate going on, you do a lit search. You don't go to climateaudit.com.

I feel like a modern medical doctor that has walked into a room to find his contemporaries bleeding patients to remove the bad humors.

 

[jmw]

Seems to be a lot of trust being placed in the peer review process which isn't justified.

Science isn't a democracy. It doesn't matter how many believe something to be true on either side.
What matters is the theory, the predictions and the testing of predictions.






JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

b2theory,

I see we have a focal point of our disagreement. You call my citing of McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) inappropriate because they are outsiders to the climate science "scene". I think that is very telling. M&M illuminated an egregious error by Michael Mann et al (the MBH98 "hockeystick"), one that was based on unsound science. The entire scientific world knows that. The difference is that some people think that Mann et al were kind of close so it was okay, even though it suppressed past variability and fanned the flames of alarmism. However, the fact is MBH98 then tried to cover it up, and in fact their cronies started a website to defend it - realclimate. The bigger issue is not that they used bad science, but that they covered it up. That turned the problem from a mistake to a cover-up. Ignorance to intentional deception. If you don't have a problem with that, that's your trip. However, don't come waltzing in here backing bad science and saying those of us who know the science is incomplete are somehow dishonest. You are practising *religion* by espousing the position to "just believe the experts".

As for the "peer review" process surrounding said inbred climate scientists, here's a peer reviewed study on that:

http://tinyurl.com/hswrong

 

[mauricestoker]

There is a bright side: flatulence is associated (at least in cows) with global warming. If that can be similarly associated with other mammals, then as long as we keep flapping our gums, we can't build up enough pressure to vent to atmosphere. South Park did a brilliant expose related to spontaneous human combustion and global warming. Perhaps if this conversation keeps going, both global warming and South Park can both be minimized.