Simon,
I agree this is a mechanism which can politicise results. But it cannot in the end alter the outcome - just slow things down. And I don't think that funding is systematically given to pro-AGW research. What is the motive in this? Even convinced & political pro-AGW activists believe that understanding more precisely the true likely consequences is vital. they least of all would sacrifice research aimed at improving forecast accuracy. And this is not one organisation - scientific funding is very variable with many countries having different views.
Mostly, at the moment, I am convinced by the fact that the pro-AGW detailed arguments seem to me more balanced and inclusive (considering all future potential uncertainties) than the anti-AGW detailed arguments. they just seem like more professional and believable science.
Perhaps I will change my mind in time....
Tom
Global Warming Concensus Broken
So the question is where are we now? 2 more years for us to get close to reality or 50 more years?But it cannot in the end alter the outcome - just slow things down.
I'm on the long end of that and I do believe that CO2 will no more explain the recent global warming than phlogiston explains chemical thermodynamics.
Do not forget that phlogiston was the more professional argument for a very long time.
And you know you may be seeing funding bias. Only the professional AGW folks get funding. The sceptics have to cobble together what they can on their own time and their own dime.
Of all the technical disciplines that affect the real world I trust (in general) engineers more than scientists. Bad science can carry on for decades or more. Bad engineering gets weeded out much quicker. Because if a bridge doesn't hold its load people notice. Engineers are a very conservative lot.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
That's odd, I find most of the AGW arguments reminiscent of creationist arguments, e.g. "You can't prove it isn't true, therefore it's true" and modern equivalents to "Burn the heretics!"I find some of the anti-AGW arguments reminiscent of creationsit arguments against evolution.
No, you didn't read the link closely. In order for CO2 to warm the lower atmosphere, it has to trap heat in the upper atmosphere, therefore if we are experiencing CO2-induced warming the upper atmosphere should be warming faster than the rest. This is what all the AGW models predicted, but it isn't happening.I think what you mean is not this, but that the global temperature rise forced by CO2 is smaller that the AGW people think.
Now, a rational, objective scientist would at this point question whether CO2 was actually causing the warming.
You sound like a creationist telling me not to question God's plan. Yes, if you asking the world to spend trillions on the basis that CO2 causes warming based on this historical data, you goddamned well better be able to explain how the effect precedes the cause!There is no need to explain this adequately
First off, the evidence that the current period is in any way unusual is highly contradictory at best (doesn't it seem odd that no one noticed the modern era was excessively warm until someone put together a "reconstruction" based on cherrrypicked indirect measurements?)Second, just assuming such warming must be the fault of modern humans is little different than assuming God must have created humans and not evolution.However we have the last 10K years relatively stable, and it would be strange for that to change now other than as reseult of anthropogenic change.
So what we have a is a theory whose mechanism is missing, whose cause trails its effect, and which is built more or less entirely around the need to find an environmental crusade.
That, my friend, is junk science.
Last edited by TallDave on Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are three very strong motives. The first is best explained by looking at the history of James Hansen.And I don't think that funding is systematically given to pro-AGW research. What is the motive in this?
James Hansen first discovered the opposite of anthropogenic global warming in the 1970s – anthropogenic global cooling. The solution was the same then as now: cut pollution. OK, great, he doesn’t like pollution, very noble, good that he’s looking for reasons to cut it, but let’s not pretend this little game is objective science. It’s a lot more like when you’re a kid and you find an article that says video games can be educational; you don’t care how educational it is or isn’t, you want to play video games, except your video games didn’t cost other people trillions of dollars.
The second is simple confirmation bias. The field of "climate science" is founded on the idea of global warming; virtually everyone in the field is going to look very stupid if it doesn't pan out.
And finally, the oldest reason for any cause: money/power. If global warming is a huge problem that requires trillions of dollars, then people like Hansen and Gore are very important and can command huge salaries, appearance fees, etc. And this trickles down to everyone else in the field.
Perfect example. The IPCC report states that sea ice is decreasing, but this year sea ice recovered to a 30-year high. That's in addition to the well-known fact Antarctic ice is increasing. So we have more ice despite this allegedly unprecedent warmth, which has somehow not melted where Vikings settled in Greenland or prevented snow in Baghdad or stopped rivers from freezing in England. That's pretty hard to buy.as a starting poing - look at the IPCC fourth report FAQ (section 8.1) on "how accurate are climate models?"
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Also from the report, this laugher:
Except that, as I pointed out in my post, they're wrong.Climate models are based on well-established physical principles
...
There is considerable confi dence that climate models provide
credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly
at continental scales and above. This confi dence comes from the
foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from
their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and
past climate changes.
Not only is the physical mechanism not happening, their predictions for 2007 and 2008 were way off. To claim these models have predictive value out to 100 years is frankly absurd.
Last edited by TallDave on Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I will go further. No climate model predicted the flattening of the temperature curve for the last 10 years. The models are now so far off that even the head of the IPCC has had to admit that the "global" temperatures will not start rising again until 2015.
The prior prediction was for temp rises to accelerate.
So far this is just the head of the IPCC. The models themselves have yet to be rejiggered to account for the decline in the rate of temp rise.
And they have yet to subtract out the PDO and other ocean effects. However, they have been magnanimous enough to admit that such effects may have contributed to some of the warming signal. How much?
So they quantify what is in their favor and give weasel words to that which is not. A very inconvenient truth.
The prior prediction was for temp rises to accelerate.
So far this is just the head of the IPCC. The models themselves have yet to be rejiggered to account for the decline in the rate of temp rise.
And they have yet to subtract out the PDO and other ocean effects. However, they have been magnanimous enough to admit that such effects may have contributed to some of the warming signal. How much?
So they quantify what is in their favor and give weasel words to that which is not. A very inconvenient truth.
Last edited by MSimon on Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Here is a funny graph:
From:
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/wp-co ... 50x218.jpg
and:
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=182
As the world cools it will be interesting to see if the atmospheric CO2 starts to decline despite continuous (albeit reduced) CO2 production by man.
That would tend to indicate atmospheric CO2 balance is determined by ocean temperature and not man made CO2 production.
A finding like that would really screw up the models PDQ. Because te models assume CO2 is a cause and not an effect.
Much hilarity will ensue. I wonder if the Nobel Committee will ask for Al Gore's prize back?
From:
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/wp-co ... 50x218.jpg
and:
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/?p=182
As the world cools it will be interesting to see if the atmospheric CO2 starts to decline despite continuous (albeit reduced) CO2 production by man.
That would tend to indicate atmospheric CO2 balance is determined by ocean temperature and not man made CO2 production.
A finding like that would really screw up the models PDQ. Because te models assume CO2 is a cause and not an effect.
Much hilarity will ensue. I wonder if the Nobel Committee will ask for Al Gore's prize back?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The Climate Science Cult:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
Happer explained that his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the Department of Energy, at which Happer said he supervised all non-weapons energy research, including climate change research. Managing a budget of more than $3 billion, Happer said he felt compelled to make sure it was being spent properly. “I would have [researchers] come in, and they would brief me on their topics,” Happer explained. “They would show up. Shiny faces, presentation ready to go. I would ask them questions, and they would be just delighted when you asked. That was true of almost every group that came in.”
The exceptions were climate change scientists, he said.
“They would give me a briefing. It was a completely different experience. I remember one speaker who asked why I wanted to know, why I asked that question. So I said, you know I always ask questions at these briefings … I often get a much better view of [things] in the interchange with the speaker,” Happer said. “This guy looked at me and said, ‘What answer would you like?’ I knew I was in trouble then. This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ”
Happer said he is dismayed by the politicization of the issue and believes the community of climate change scientists has become a veritable “religious cult,” noting that nobody understands or questions any of the science.
“[Climate change theory has] been extremely bad for science. It’s going to give science a really bad name in the future,” he said. “I think science is one of the great triumphs of humankind, and I hate to see it dragged through the mud in an episode like this.”
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
*
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/13/protec ... ipcc-turf/
*
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/13/protec ... ipcc-turf/
*
Also in need of clarification is the current wide disparity regarding how to achieve and quantify attribution. IPCC studies have primarily utilized simulations by general circulation models, which thus require that the models be sufficiently understood and validated to engender confidence that simulated global and regional fingerprints are realistic. An array of results using various statistical analyses of observations suggests that deficiencies of the climate models may compromise their ability to simulate responses to small radiative forcings, such as by solar variability (Stott et al.; Camp and Tung).
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I can't see the parallel. I am not saying that we should not question gaps in knowledge, and strive to fill them (as a believer might say of his faith). I am not saying all is certain. I am saying that gaps in knowledge do not necessarily invalidate the main theory (the parallel with evolution, and anti-evolution arguments, is clear).TallDave wrote:That's odd, I find most of the AGW arguments reminiscent of creationist arguments, e.g. "You can't prove it isn't true, therefore it's true" and modern equivalents to "Burn the heretics!"I find some of the anti-AGW arguments reminiscent of creationsit arguments against evolution.
No, you didn't read the link closely. In order for CO2 to warm the lower atmosphere, it has to trap heat in the upper atmosphere, therefore if we are experiencing CO2-induced warming the upper atmosphere should be warming faster than the rest. This is what all the AGW models predicted, but it isn't happening.I think what you mean is not this, but that the global temperature rise forced by CO2 is smaller that the AGW people think.
Now, a rational, objective scientist would at this point question whether CO2 was actually causing the warming.
You sound like a creationist telling me not to question God's plan. Yes, if you asking the world to spend trillions on the basis that CO2 causes warming based on this historical data, you goddamned well better be able to explain how the effect precedes the cause!There is no need to explain this adequately
First off, the evidence that the current period is in any way unusual is highly contradictory at best (doesn't it seem odd that no one noticed the modern era was excessively warm until someone put together a "reconstruction" based on cherrrypicked indirect measurements?)Second, just assuming such warming must be the fault of modern humans is little different than assuming God must have created humans and not evolution.However we have the last 10K years relatively stable, and it would be strange for that to change now other than as reseult of anthropogenic change.
So what we have a is a theory whose mechanism is missing, whose cause trails its effect, and which is built more or less entirely around the need to find an environmental crusade.
That, my friend, is junk science.
After such a long collection of rather political posts that raise so many questions, I will answer thus:
I am not "asking the world to spend trillions on combatting GW". I am not a very political person. But I do want to find the (scientific) truth of this matter. Truth matters to me. I happen to think it more important than most things (an old-fashioned and unpopular view, I know). If I think about politics, as you do, I may think less clearly on this focussed issue of what is the scientific truth.
I expect that every one of the scientific questions above can be well answered. The answers will vary, they may be: "this does not seem to be very important" or "this is a misrepresentation based on over-analysis of one dataset" or something else. how about you choose the one killer scientific argument which shows the holes in the AGW hypothesis, and I go away and investigate it? the results might surprise you.
best wishes, Tom
tomclarke said:
Particularly, explain how they overcame the formidable problems to do with turbulent vertical transport in a natural buoyancy field. Then explain how these models will predict the climate 100 years from now, with sufficient accuracy that society can spend hundreds of billions based on their propositions, without the climate modellers being sued for negligence.
And then explain how an engineer, as is usual in commercial engineering models, would do due diligence on this spending by examining these "validated" numerical prediction models.
Best wishes.
Ok, go away and find out how the climate scientists validate their turbulence models used for the Navier-Stokes solvers of their fabulous "Global Circulation Models".how about you choose the one killer scientific argument which shows the holes in the AGW hypothesis, and I go away and investigate it?
Particularly, explain how they overcame the formidable problems to do with turbulent vertical transport in a natural buoyancy field. Then explain how these models will predict the climate 100 years from now, with sufficient accuracy that society can spend hundreds of billions based on their propositions, without the climate modellers being sued for negligence.
And then explain how an engineer, as is usual in commercial engineering models, would do due diligence on this spending by examining these "validated" numerical prediction models.
Best wishes.
Please also explain how to get the turbulence models to work with grid squares 125 mi on a side and why the grid square size does nor vary with terrain (i.e. mountains), sea state, weather features (hurricanes), vegetation growth, ice quantity and quality, etc. etc. etc.
====
And while you are at it - and I keep asking - why aren't ocean anomalies (PDO etc.) subtracted out of of the temperature record to more accurately reflect the supposed contribution of CO2?
i.e. it may be difficult to predict the future of these anomalies (wait a minute you mean the circulation models don't model the oceans well?) but certainly we can know their past and correct for that.
====
And while you are at it - and I keep asking - why aren't ocean anomalies (PDO etc.) subtracted out of of the temperature record to more accurately reflect the supposed contribution of CO2?
i.e. it may be difficult to predict the future of these anomalies (wait a minute you mean the circulation models don't model the oceans well?) but certainly we can know their past and correct for that.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Hows about investigate how "climate simulation" software is really just weather prediction software being misapplied. Climate scientists take software intended to predict weather five days in advance and purport to predict climate 100 years in advance with it. There's this thing called a butterfly effect....icarus wrote:tomclarke said:Ok, go away and find out how the climate scientists validate their turbulence models used for the Navier-Stokes solvers of their fabulous "Global Circulation Models".how about you choose the one killer scientific argument which shows the holes in the AGW hypothesis, and I go away and investigate it?
Particularly, explain how they overcame the formidable problems to do with turbulent vertical transport in a natural buoyancy field. Then explain how these models will predict the climate 100 years from now, with sufficient accuracy that society can spend hundreds of billions based on their propositions, without the climate modellers being sued for negligence.
And then explain how an engineer, as is usual in commercial engineering models, would do due diligence on this spending by examining these "validated" numerical prediction models.
Best wishes.
There's a lot of land anomalies too, as development happens around old weather stations, they become exposed to local sources of warming: Steam vents, heating vents, etc. Also, something as simple as the titanium white paint peeling off the enclosure can dramatically increase the average temps recorded.MSimon wrote:Please also explain how to get the turbulence models to work with grid squares 125 mi on a side and why the grid square size does nor vary with terrain (i.e. mountains), sea state, weather features (hurricanes), vegetation growth, ice quantity and quality, etc. etc. etc.
====
And while you are at it - and I keep asking - why aren't ocean anomalies (PDO etc.) subtracted out of of the temperature record to more accurately reflect the supposed contribution of CO2?
i.e. it may be difficult to predict the future of these anomalies (wait a minute you mean the circulation models don't model the oceans well?) but certainly we can know their past and correct for that.
OK - that seems clear enough - I will look at the way GCM solvers are validated - specifically wrt atmospheric turbulence effects. And whether the large grid size invalidates results. Watch this space but it may take a few days.
Here is the data:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... htrend.jpg
Here is a summary report looking at reasons for the 2008 minimum:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlo ... report.php
you will see that last year there was an unusually large melt (perhaps 1 in 20 years). The overall trend remains the same though it is possible that the recent wider variation in arctic ice is a trend rather than natural variation. I would not count on it.
I fail to see any obervations that can be drawn from this record except that sea-ice area is tending downwards.
There will be newspaper reports of "shock smallest sea-ice area ever" that is what newspapers do. With a downwards trend you will get minimums from time to time.
I can't see here any argument against the GCMs or the climatologists who do long-term modelling or the thesis that the global temperature is increasing (ignoring variation of less than 10 years).
You are right - this is a perfect example of how statistical blips are highlighted by the popular press (on both sides) and trumpeted as evidence for or against GW. It is not. You need a sober scientific assessment of trends averaged over time - not a single figure.
If the IPCC report mentions the trend that is fair - if it mentions recent all-time mimimums within the trend that is hardly surprising.
There is arctic & antactic sea-ice. Ove rthe last 20 years arctic ice has a trend of area decrease. the antarctic sea-ice has a smaller trend of area increase (though one part is melting, other parts have accumulated to compensate).TallDave wrote: Perfect example. The IPCC report states that sea ice is decreasing, but this year sea ice recovered to a 30-year high. That's in addition to the well-known fact Antarctic ice is increasing. So we have more ice despite this allegedly unprecedent warmth, which has somehow not melted where Vikings settled in Greenland or prevented snow in Baghdad or stopped rivers from freezing in England. That's pretty hard to buy.
Here is the data:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... htrend.jpg
Here is a summary report looking at reasons for the 2008 minimum:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlo ... report.php
you will see that last year there was an unusually large melt (perhaps 1 in 20 years). The overall trend remains the same though it is possible that the recent wider variation in arctic ice is a trend rather than natural variation. I would not count on it.
I fail to see any obervations that can be drawn from this record except that sea-ice area is tending downwards.
There will be newspaper reports of "shock smallest sea-ice area ever" that is what newspapers do. With a downwards trend you will get minimums from time to time.
I can't see here any argument against the GCMs or the climatologists who do long-term modelling or the thesis that the global temperature is increasing (ignoring variation of less than 10 years).
You are right - this is a perfect example of how statistical blips are highlighted by the popular press (on both sides) and trumpeted as evidence for or against GW. It is not. You need a sober scientific assessment of trends averaged over time - not a single figure.
If the IPCC report mentions the trend that is fair - if it mentions recent all-time mimimums within the trend that is hardly surprising.