A new look on global warming

Remove all ads!

Actually, Drew, I found some stuff, in much less time than that, too. There has, as of yet, been no response from the IPCC. As to the studies mentioned, I found one talked about here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

That's just one of a slew of studies released in the past few months that have shown that the math, assumptions, and predictions made by the major climate models used during the past decade have been incomplete, inaccurate, and wrong, respectively. Most interesting to note, however, is that apparently none of these climate models were validated by comparison to actual records. In other words, they were never grounded in the observable verification that science has used as often as possible since the dis-proof of spontaneous generation. More significanlty than that, however, one of them showed that one of the linchpins of the global warming theory, the theory of "CO2 forcing" is entirely unrealistic. It is this mechanic that drives current climate models to massive temperatures.

And as to basic assumptions and burdens of proof, I prefer to assume that both sides have an equal burden of proof and believe whichever one provides the best credible proof the best. The global warming proponents' frequent alarmist claims of radical evidence (i.e. polar ice caps melting in the summer of all things), with equally freqent disproofs by their detractors has really tainted my view of anything they present. On the 'burden of proof' scale, they're in the negative.

 

You're over-stating things. The Fox news headline was Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong. (emphasis mine...and, yes, I read the whole article) Not even Fox was irresponsible enough to refer to it as absolute fact. The article itself has not touched on what the reaction of the global community has been to their study (which is actually the important part). I'll wait until NPR or the BBC covers the whole story before I make a decision about the matter.

 

My point was that this is only one of a slew of them. Yes, they have all discussed only pieces of various things, and yes, there has yet to be a respose to them. The most damning of them, however, is one that compares global temperature averages, fossil fuel consumption, and solar activity for the past 150(?) years. The conclusion? During the thirties, when fossil fuel consumption world wide was fairly constant, the planet's temperature averages spiked for over a decade. This is the period that currently holds the record high for hottest year on record. During the subsequent 40 year period where fossil fuel consumption world wide more than tripled, the planet actually cooled significantly.

By far the most damning fact that I have seen as a whole is that the climate models used today, when used to model known periods (like the past decade) do not match known historical data. In any field of science, a model that does not match known conditions is tossed out, or at least sent back to the drawing board.

 

Sorry, that's just a load. The issue no longer has anything to do with "science," but with partisan politics. You have all these conservatives, who spend half their free time, running around trying to disprove something that "real scientists" are still in the middle of researching and trying to make sense out of. I'm sorry, but much like the conservative agenda of the FOX Coporation, I have no faith, nor any regard for all these conservative politicos, or for any of their "evidence" in trying to disprove anything, whether it's:

1. Global Warming
2. Why people are gay
3. Special Creation vs. Evolution
4. Stem Cell Research
5. When Life is concieved
Or mostly:

6. How the Clintons created all the world's problems.

 

How did you know what my thesis was on?

Looking out my window in Chicago it is SNOWING! Where is global warming when you need it? I think it's just a myth like the unbiased media, gay being a choice, religion (in general), and the Clinton's being the world's saviors.

 

Chandos, first off, the vast majority of people criticizing global warming are not criticizing the legitimate research that makes the news, but rather pointing out other legitimate research that doesn't (because it contradicts global warming), blowing the whistle on all the BS 'studies' out there that do, and trying to keep politicians and nut jobs from making huge mistakes because of it.

I have no problem with genuine, non-biased scientists studying climate change. I have no problem with them publishing their results. I have problems when 'scientists' make bogus claims about the 'evidence of global warming' which any undergrad in meteorology, history, or math can pick apart. I have a problem when such people take advantage of the less intelligent among us to make sure their views become policy.

And in case you all think I'm just being paranoid, it's starting again. The news media is getting all up in arms again because the Arctic ice is melting. Guess what, it does that every year and in the winter it reforms.

 

Not really. The vast majority of those ""whistle blowers" are political hacks who are only interested in "blowing the whistle" on those whom they suspect may have a very different politcal aganda than they do. They are the ones with the "BS" studies who, in desperate attempts to discredit real scientists, are the ones who usually make the idiotic politcal mistakes.

 

Give it up NOG. Getting Chandos to admit that some "right-wing" scientists actually have science in mind when questioning global warming is equivalent to getting him to admit Gore is wrong. Not going to happen. (Edit: I'm not trying to put a dig in on Chandos here -- just making general statement about his convictions on this subject. Such staunch conviction is not a bad thing at all and is actually commendable.).

Chandos: You are implying that the only "real scientists" are scientists that agree with your personal views -- an implication which is untrue.

 

Chandos, I've pointed out enough holes in global warming myself to sink the Bismark, and haven't heard any of them answered. The 'BS studies' to which I refer are those not in any way based on real science. Real science being defined as the pursuit of knowledge based on testing and correcting theories using real-world data as much as possible. As I have said before, climate models which don't agree with historically known periods need to be ditched, yet they seem to be the backbone of the global warming movement today. The studies which correlate global temperature change to solar activity are not bogus, they are based on real data. The studies that show periods in recent history when the planet has been warmer than it is today are not bogus, they are based on real data. The studies that show we are no longer in a period of global warming (however temporary that may be) are not bogus, they are based on real data.

Which 'BS studies' are you refering to?

 

While "global warming" may or may not be scientifically backed and accepted, I think there's one piece of common sense that does come out of this debate: It's always best to minimize the pollution footprint left by any human activity.

People are wasting so much time arguing about the impacts that there's no energy left to look at the actual problem!

 

You know Rally, God has given man dominion over earth, and without global warming as a palpable excuse (that is so because the 'theory' has enough holes to sink the Bismarck) to change anything about our footprint we can continue exercise our god-given right and to do as we please and sensibly invest those billions in revenues instead of on modernisations or, horrors, sulphur filters, emission reductions or some other treehugger's folly ... lalalalala.

That said, of course you hit the nail on the head, and that is why I find the "oh, but global warming has so many holes as to sink the Bismarck" point of view always a little bit silly (no offence), and suspiciously self serving when funded by the American Petroleum Institute or AEI or some outfit like that. They employ professional climate change sceptics and pay them exclusively for holding such views and to provide a steady supply of on-call scepticism, ready to be fed to lawmakers who might otherwise get the silly idea of implementing regulation that forces companies to divert precious revenues for investments into emission reduction.

 

Yeah. Agreement must be reached on the nature of the problem prior to attempts to resolve it, as the nature and severity of the problem dictate the form and force of the response.

 

Indeed! And full and unanimous agreement before any measures are taken! Only in consensus there is salvation!

Of course, this so-called 'scientific consensus' is a hoax. It is self-interested group think, if not a conspiracy or self-delusion, not to mention that it is full of holes so large that they would sink the Bismarck.

Disagreement, on the other hand, if only voiced vehemently and persistently enough, suggests by its very existence, even without argument, proof that the other point of view - this 'science', with all those holes in it large enough to sink the Bismarck - is questionable enough to invoke such vehemence and persistence - lest the disagreement would not make sense, even be cynical and frivolous - after all fairness dictates to assume that all participants in the public debate are honest and serious people interested in nothing else but the issue at hand. So if the climate change sceptics stay sceptic, then the science behind global warming must be faulty.

 

Anyone interested in learning just why point 1 in NOG's original post is wholly incorrect would do well to start here.

In short, if you use a statistical outlier as your reference point, you can prove anything.

 

I read this in Time magazine.

I think I would rather continue to argue then do some of the things they are thinking about.

For clarification purposes- this article came from Time magazine and not Fox or some other right wing mouthpiece. In other words it is safe to read as it must be true.

 

Rally, I fully agree with you, but this must be done in a responsable manner. Establishing a $0.50/gallon of gas tax in the US (proposed by a Senator from Minnesota?) is not responsable.

Ragusa, I have no problem with regulating things we understand and know to be toxic, or even dangerous in large amounts. SO2 filters are fine, lead and mercury confinement are great, and using fly ash as landfill should be flatly prohibited. The problem is, there is no such understanding for CO2, and that is the issue here.

AMaster, that was an interesting article, but the end point of it seemed to be two things:
1.) there is so much uncertainty that we can't even accurately tell what the current state is, much less how accurate our models are therefore
2.) by running a whole lot of models and comparing them, we can filter out an accurate average trend.

The problem with this is that it assumes the models are reliable to begin with. In order fo the models to be reliable, there are certain criteria that must be fulfilled:
1.) the theories on which they are based must be accurate
2.) the assumptions which they utilize (and they do) must be accurate
3.) the approximations and simplifications they utilize (and they do) must have minor impact
4.) the program must be properly implemented
5.) the initial and boundary conditions must be accurate
Since many of these are impossible to directly verify, the only reliable mechanism to use is real-world data. However, there are some problems with these models even without real-world data:
1.) Theory: CO2 forcing, the backbone of the runaway global warming process, has never been supported by experimentation and recent studies have cast great doubt on its reliability.
2.) Approximations: The simplification of the base equations eliminated the negative feedback process which we now know prevents runaway global warming.
3.) Approximations: The models used today do not account for solar activity or cloud formation of any kind. These are known to be significant (though hard to predict) factors in our environment.
Now I'm pretty sure their programs are properly implemented, and I'll guess their initial conditions are ok, though boundary conditions are iffy. I'm also not too familiar with all the assumptions they make, so I won't speculate about them.

Just the above problems, however, would have these models laughed out of any aerospace conference in the world (if they were aerodynamics models and not climate models). Actually, the lack of validation alone would do that. Seriously, validation is that big of an issue. Without validation, you're just playing computer games that have no connection to the real world.

 

No offence taken by your comments, T2. I have nothing but respect for you and your comments on these boards. I've always gotten along pretty well with most conservatives on this board. And I don't even have any real problem with real conservatism, although my point of view is very different as a prgressive liberal from that of real conservatives who are rationalists (that would be largely Libertarians) .

I don't hold any personal views regarding science, or global warming. And I tend to agree with Rally on the points she made above. That said, I have great admiration and respect for Al Gore. But I understand that he "could be wrong" regarding the specifics of global warming. Mr. Gore has had a very well known past history regarding the human care (or lack of) for our planet. It is not surprising that he would take the extreme track that he has regarding the issue of human waste and pollution adversely affecting the planet. And he sees that there may be larger consequences for the planet and its climate in the long run if we are not careful in how we regulate our own wastes.

I think Mr. Gore is an advocate for our environment and that he may very well be right on some of the broader aspects of how we approach our stewardship of this planet. Still, I find it odd that all these FOX loving Bush supporters, who clamor like "Chicken Littles" over the phony "War on Terror" and Islamophobia, are complaining like hens over the "alarmist" nature of the advocates for global warming and its effects. They are nothing more than partisan hacks and all the posturing in the world will not convince me that they are "real scientists."

NOG - I'm glad for you that you believe that you have found so many "holes" in the science of global warming. Perhaps you have enough holes to fill the Albert Hall.

 

I don't think that's an accurate summary of the article. Even if it is, however, it doesn't change the reality that the 'since 1998 stuff has plateaued' argument is almost certainly deliberately deceptive.

Also, with regards to point 3 from the OP: the idea that greater temperatures and CO2 concentrations would be beneficial is odd. Greater CO2 concentrations would, among other things, increase the acidity of the oceans, decreasing the amount of life in the oceans, crashing fisheries and so on. How many people would actually die from the sea level rising? Dunno. However, as you can see here or here indicate that it's not a problem to be taken lightly.

here you can see changes in hardiness zones in the US over the past decade or so. When, y'know, 'temperature wasn't rising'.

 

Chandos:
Like you, I have no pity for those that try to sell off dangerous waste as no big issue, or try to sweep it under the rug (or rocks as the case may be), but I also have a problem with those trying to classify CO2 as a pollutant based on sketchy science and people's fears. I also have serious problems with those trying to play off people's fears as concerns Islam and Terror, though I hardly think this is limited to Fox. I think the biggest difference between us is who the 'partisan hacks claiming to be scientists' are. I see the global warming arguments and evidence as increasingly seperate from reality and increasingly playing off people's fears and ignorance, whereas the anti-global warming arguments and evidence have been consistently realistic and grounded in logic and science. Could you perhaps reference some scientific bases for global warming?

AMaster:
My analysis of the article may not have been entirely accurate, but that doesn't change the fact that signal vs noise ratios have nothing to do with the model's validation.

A signal vs noise ratio can tell you that you are actually producing rational data as opposed to your model going on the fritz (or exploding as we say). Basically, it proves that #4 on my list isn't an issue and that part of the issues of #3 and #5 are addressed (i.e. the approximations and initial and boundary conditions don't break the models).

Validation requires that you show the model actually reflects reality, not just that a collection of models or runs are internally consistent.

And I can (and actually do) say the same thing about much of the global warming arguement. Just saying it doesn't make it true, however. What makes you believe that the plateau arguement is deceptive?

 

Please tell me you forgot the "sarcasm" indicators in this post! If not, you missed my point entirely.