Author
|
Topic: The Flipping Point (Read 94986 times) |
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
  
|
 |
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #165 on: 2008-07-11 16:01:00 » |
 |
Quote:| [Hermit]<snip>which points to its limitations as a leading indicator.<snip> |
Thx Hermit; I appreciate the reality check.
Cheers
Fritz
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point : Climate row heats up
« Reply #166 on: 2008-07-21 21:56:00 » |
|
[Fritz]Nice to see the American physicists are catching up to the CoV discussions  Albeit in a curious way ....
American physicists warned not to debate global warming : our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies
Source: The Register: Science
Author:Andrew Orlowski
Date: Monday 21st July 2008 16:04 GMT
Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members about an article in one of their own publications. Don't read this, they say - we don't agree with it. But what is it about the piece that is so terrible, that like Medusa, it could make men go blind?
It's an article that examines the calculation central to climate models. As the editor of the APS's newsletter American Physics Jeffrey Marque explains, the global warming debate must be re-opened.
"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion," he wrote.
American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity. The believers are represented by two physicists from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, who state that:
"Basic atmospheric models clearly predict that additional greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of Earth. To argue otherwise, one must prove a physical mechanism that gives a reasonable alternative cause of warming. This has not been done. Sunspot and temperature correlations do not prove causality."
But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.
Not so much Medusa, then, as Nanny telling the children what not to think.
"The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie," writes Professor John Brignell on his Numberwatch blog. "The second is, to say the least, contentious; while the third is an outrageous example of ultra vires interference by a committee in the proper conduct of scientific debate."
Monckton has asked for an apology. In a letter to the APS President Arthur Bienenstock, he writes:
"If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?"
Believers and sceptics have spent the past few days examining the value of "peer review", and the weight of validity that should be placed on "publication". Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an opinion.
(Whether it's science is not in question - whether it's "good science" or "bad science" is the question. An earlier presentation by Monckton examining questioning climate sensitivity received was examined by NASA's Gavin Schmidt on the believers' blog, RealClimate.org.)
But for anyone without a dog in this race, and perhaps not familiar with the "state of the science" there may be a couple of surprises in Monckton's paper.
One is how small the field of "experts" really is. The UN's IPCC is tasked with producing a summary of the "scientific consensus" and claims to process the contributions of some 2,500 scientists. But as Monckton writes:
"It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted." [our emphasis]
Another eye-opener is his explanation of how the believers' climate models are verified:
"Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied," writes Monckton. "Such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture."
In other words, an unproven hypothesis is fed into a computer (so far so good), but it can only be verified against experiments that have no resemblance to the chaotic system of the Earth's climate. It is not hard to see how the scientists could produce an immaculate "model" that's theoretically perfect in every respect (all the equations balance, and it may even be programmed to offer perfect "hind-casting"), but which has no practical predictive value at all. It's safe from the rude intrusion of empirical evidence drawn from atmospheric observation.
The great British-born physicist Freeman Dyson offered an impertinent dose of reality which illustrates the dangers of relying on theory for both your hypothesis and the evidence you need to support it. Since 8 per cent of atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the planet's biomass every year, notes Dyson, the average lifespan of a carbon molecule in the atmosphere is about 12 years. His observation leaves the "climate scientists" models as immaculate as they were before, but suggests a very different course of policy action. It suggests our stewardship of land should be at the forefront of CO2 mitigation strategies. That's not something we hear from politicians, pressure groups and, yes ... climate scientists.
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #167 on: 2008-07-22 02:46:30 » |
|
Outrageously slanted reporting displaying massive evidence of unstated bias. For support for this conclusion, we need not go further than noting that: skeptics persuaded by evidence are not equal to believers; people who reject evidence to maintain an opinion better fit that description, and rejecting the thrust of the article on the basis of hopelessly inappropriate use of labels.
Trying to see past the latherings of bias, I think that the heart of the matter may be here, "Monckton is a classics scholar and former journalist, which believers maintain is enough to disqualify him from holding an opinion."
I don't think that any rational person would deny another's qualification for holding an opinion. Opinions are like arseholes. Most everyone has one. This formulation is, however, in all probability a massive mischaracterization of what the scientific community is saying. That is because a rational person would realize that the weight of opinions vary, particularly because an in field expert is more likely to recognize faulty data, observation, methodology, processing, arguments, analysis and conclusions than somebody not intimate with the field. From the few facts of this article it is clear that Monkton's opinion, being directly contradictory to that of the vast preponderance of the the in-field experts, needs to be regarded extremely dubiously unless and until it is supported by actual evidence sufficient to persuade the preponderance of in-field experts. That has, to date, not happened and; in this case I strongly suggest won't ever be happening. Is it wrong to say that? Not in the slightest. Is it wrong to say that such opinions ought not to be given the weight of appearance in scholarly publications with the implication of peer review even when the article in question is not evaluable by the usual standards? It should not ever have been accepted for publication.
The idea of "equal time" for insane ideas has no place in a rational society (at least outside of the humanities) and when the gate keepers mess up as severely as these appear to have done, a cautious labeling of the material as, to be charitable, dubious worth, is the least one could expect for it. This statement of the perceived worth is of course an opinion. The degree of anger being displayed at it is indicative that perhaps the editors are seen as having more weight than the dissenter, which seems perfectly correct to me. At least if you grant that people other than dissenters also have the right to formulate and express their opinions. A right which is by implication rejected by this incendiary article or it would lose most of its raison d' etre.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #168 on: 2008-07-22 13:59:06 » |
|
Quote:| [Hermit}The idea of "equal time" for insane ideas has no place in a rational society (at least outside of the humanities) and when the gate keepers mess up as severely as these appear to have done, a cautious labeling of the material as, to be charitable, dubious worth |
This article seems to me to be the norm rather the exception in terms of disinformation (as you point out) in the current media circus that is enveloping us over the discussion (or rhetoric) of Global Warming.
I've directed a number of friends to the "Flipping Point at CoV" and even in a focused thread as this, much confusion ensued.
Is there anyway to come at this from the "follow the money angle" rather then the scientific community 'facts' approach; to date I have not come across a good discussion anywhere about 'what's good for General Motors', Halibuton, OOCL, Hyundai, or Delmonte and how the manufactures and the financial folks would really like to spin this to their advantage, by choosing to influence the scientific community and play with the media.
This may lead to a better way of getting rid of the ersatz scientific chaff and get to the kernel of the matter; which scientific groups are actually getting a handle on whats happening vs playing the facts at someones behest
Any Thoughts ?
Fritz
PS I have stayed clear of how US Election 2008 would want to spin this
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #171 on: 2008-07-30 20:46:25 » |
|
Quote from: Fritz on 2008-07-29 22:45:27
No joking high maintenance!
Walter
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.46
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
 
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #172 on: 2008-08-01 15:57:35 » |
|
Quote:This may lead to a better way of getting rid of the ersatz scientific chaff and get to the kernel of the matter; which scientific groups are actually getting a handle on whats happening vs playing the facts at someones behest
Any Thoughts ?
Fritz |
I have some thoughts ...
The way I was taught undergraduate physics and chemistry, if you cannot measure it, it isn't science.
Now moving from here to 'climate forcings' ...
Climate forcings ... as a measure of greenhouse effectiveness ... cannot be measured but they can be calculated.
But something calculated can at the same time not be measured.
An example from geometry:
The starting point is that length, even along a curve that is not straight, can easily be measured. The simplest case could be a crooked branch in a tree. You simply let a rope follow the branch and mark the beginning and the end. Then you take it to the ground and measure against a straight rod. Similarly if you want to measure volume. You simply take any body and put it into water, and see how much the level of water has increased.
The reason for these two is that "length is preserved" or "volume of water is preserved".
On the other hand it is not possible to measure area of a curved surface. One can get good approximations by eg. cutting small peices of paper and fitting them onto the surface so that they cover, but do not double cover. Then you can weigh the total set of pieces of paper - but this is onoly an approximaton. Even when it comes to the area of a circle the only way to measure it is by covering with e.g. a piece of paper, and then weighing that. This is the famous "squaring the circle" problem.
There are some classical units of area based on the work of man sowing his field. The Swedish word "tunnland" is the size of a field that can be sown with one barrel of grain.
In some sense even the area of a rectangle or a triangle have to be calculated as base times height.
In mechanics velocity is also calculated - while acceleration can be measured (by inertia), so there are in facts many important notions that can only be calculated, but not measured directly.
Now, considering this .... one wonders how climate forcing can play such a pivotal role in the climate models and the very AGW hypothesis ... moving onto climate models (which are the harbringers of doom) ...
I advise all interested parties to read the following:
July 31, 2008
Climate Change Science Program Issues Report on Climate Models
WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) today announced the release of the report “Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations,” the 10th in a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products (SAPs) managed by U.S. federal agencies. Developed under the leadership of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), this report, SAP 3.1, describes computer models of the Earth’s climate and their ability to simulate current climate change.
Continues at links ...
Report's web site:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/default.htm
Press release (HTML): http://energy.gov/news/6442.htm
Press release (PDF): http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-1/sap3-1-press-release.pdf
Brochure (PDF): http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap3-1/sap3-1-brochure.pdf
......
I bring attention to the following key (read 'revealing') claim: "modern models faithfully simulate continental to global scale temperature patterns and trends observed during the 20th century." (emphasis mine)
Seriously though (OK, I was being serious, but ...), I think every sentence of this article needs to be dissected and tabulated. As I see, the activity includes literally hundreds of parameterizations; each one carries several approximations of reality. I think if someone just list all of them in one table, the sheer size of possible errors and deviations should serve well the skeptical view on this subject.
I especially like the insert on Page 24 that deals with hand tuning of global mean energy balance, "to avoid temperature drifts in 20th and 21th century that would obscure response to imposed changes in greenhouse ... forcings" . "Parameters in the cloud scheme are altered to create a balanced state". This is truly fascinating. First, they derive more or less realistic parameterization for cloud cover from observations and theory, but then they alter correct parameters to suit their preconceived concept of eternally stable climate that only 'evil' men can change. What a bunch of bullshit. But it is a very interesting read.
Climate forcing and climate models are the central pillars of this whole pile of shit we call AGW ... unpick them, and you unpick the hypothesis.
- iolo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #174 on: 2008-08-01 19:26:36 » |
|
It is years since I have seen an argument by analogy from somebody competent. Still it fails for all of the usual reasons. Let me, assuming that everyone here knows that analogy has limits, respond rather with an argument to the unproved prerequisite assumption.
Iolo, as part of your studies did you take calculus? In which case do you remember Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise? To any precalculus student, it is clear that if progress is sufficiently finely divided, poor Achilles cannot possibly beat the tortoise and thus is right to cede the race.
And yet, to paraphrase Galileo or the student of infinitesimals, things "still move" and tend towards rational, summable conclusions. Conclusions which are used in hard science and applied science and are recognized as better science than any amount of approximating the measurement and summation of infinite intervals, for all that it is calculated. This effectively demolishes the impact of your opening statement that science is about quantification and quantification only, and that of course is sufficient to invalidate any conclusions reached from it. But for the sake of maintaining a rational stance, and bearing in mind the thermal data you are still ignoring and the grounds which continue to migrate, let me continue with a brief diversion into the infinity of issues you raise.
Without fully comprehending the field or the models, I can accept that every in-field expert I know (and through colleagues and family, I know a bunch of in-field experts on 4 continents), considers that this is no longer an area where there is anything to do but quantify how badly we have screwed ourselves and the planet. But philosophers and physicists and politicians and even not a few students disagree and cite complicated thingies I suspect they don't fully understand.
Meanwhile, the world is indubitably warming (infra red satellite measurements), ice masses are indubitably decreasing (satellite gavity measurements), year-by-year record temperatures continue to be set and CO2 and Methane levels have soared. These are all measurable things, although the necessary analysis is complex. None-the-less, they are quantifiable.
And unfortunately for any attempt by misguided ducks to peck the AGCC theory to death, no matter how many infinistesimals are used, any analysis runs up against the equally hard fact that according to the literature, tthe measured variations in solar output account for less than 15% of the measured temperature changes we have observed.
AGCC explains this and correlates what we are observing across many fioelds and disciplines. Even if, like evolution, or Newton's laws, or Specioal and General Relativity, it is "just a theory," supported by calculations which build out the inferences which fill in between the observations. Something necessary to any science. Or it really wouldn't be interesting. The alternative you propose would apparently limit us to merely taking measurements; and the implied question you didn't answer is "which things should we be measuring", "which measurements should we be taking", "how do we know the measurements are relevant," "what are the error limits on the measurements," "how do we compare measurements taken at different times and under different conditions," and so forth. Notice that none of these really interesting questions can be answered by taking measurements. It must have been a strange kind of science education you received if your institution told you that these questions are not "science", then again, I suspect you are not quoting your educators completely and in context. Are you quite sure that you are not doing the same kind of thing to climate science?
Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
the.bricoleur
Archon
Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.46
Rate the.bricoleur
making sense of change
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #175 on: 2008-08-02 08:33:35 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2008-07-09 13:56:00
[Hermit] If you review your earlier submissions, you will see that you have claimed that arctic ice has remained within similar limits and is not decreasing, |
I think what I stated was more akin to the fact that while the Arctic is warming, the Antarctic is cooling.
Quote:| that global glacial mass is increasing, not decreasing, |
I think what I stated was that, it does matter that while the Arctic has recently had low levels of ice cover the Antarctic ice has been at high levels and in 2007 the Antarctic set a new record for high ice cover (90% of polar ice is in the Antarctic).
My post in the following thread are my thoughts on the so-called 'rapid melting of the Arctic ice' ... clickety click
Quote:| that global temperatures are variable to decreasing, |
I think what I stated was more complex than this ...
Quote:| and even that extreme weather is no more common than in the past, |
Indeed.
-------
Quote:and indeed in your current missive you repeat some of this, "exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940." This is a flat rejection of data, e.g. :
 .
NOAA is also helpful even if their data series seem to end just as Bush took office, while from Oak Ridge
Quote:| Trends in annual mean temperature anomalies for the globe show relatively stable temperatures from the beginning of the record through about 1910, with relatively rapid and steady warming through the early 1940s, followed by another period of relatively stable temperatures through the mid-1970s. From this point onward, another rapid rise similar to that in the earlier part of the century is observed. Nineteen ninety-eight was the warmest year of the global mean temperature series to date (0.58°C above the 1961-1990 reference period mean), followed by 2005 (0.48°C above). [Jones et al. (1999) report the 1961-1990 reference period means for the globe, northern hemisphere, and southern hemisphere as 14.0°C, 14.6°C, and 13.4°C, respectively.] Nine of the ten warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past ten years (1995-2004). The only year in the last ten not among the warmest ten is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The ten warmest years, in descending order, are 1998, 2005, 2003 and 2002 (tie), 2004, 2001, 1997, 1995, 1999, and 1990. A linear regression model applied to the global annual anomalies indicates a warming trend of about 0.69°C since the record began in the mid-nineteenth century. |
[Iolo Morganwg] the entire AGW hypothesis is political and not scientific
[Hermit] And of course, denying the data is scientific? |
I am so pleased you have raised this ... it was going to be my next post for Fritz.
The above from Hermit all looks very convincing ... but let's see ...
The data used above comes from the Hadley Centre/CRU data sets. Now, these data sets are not available for independent analysis*. Is that scientific, I ask?
* Independent researchers (i.e anybody outside of HAD/CRU) are not privy to the stations used or the adjustments made.
Moving on. A quick overview of all the data sets:
Surface Temperature data sets:
HadCRUT3 (for the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit)
GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Sciences) Run by James Hansen
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency)
Satellite Temperature data sets:
UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) Run by John Christy and Roy Spencer
RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) Run by Carl Mears
Reanalysis data sets (temperature, pressure, and a host of other variables):
NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Data
-----
There was a discussion on RealClimate a few years back where Gavin Schmidt basically maintained that it does not matter which of the various data sets of average global temperature anomalies are used, you get the same sort of results as are claimed by this paper. However, he produced no evidence to support this claim. It is quite clear to me that if you use any of the other data sets (HAD/CRU, NCDC/NOAA and RSS/MSU) the results are dramatically different from these using NASA/GISS. Which brings up the perennial question, which of the different data sets is closest to reality? I have no doubt that this analysis by HAD/CRU is valid, if the data is valid. The question is, is the data used in this study valid?
Taking this further, there are serious problems with how the data for calculating the GMT is collected. So, putting aside measurement errors at sites, or the UHI, etc. let me explain the problem with grid boxes ...
The surface of the globe is divided into grid squares known as 'grid boxes'. The GMT is the average temperature of the grid boxes.
Not all grid boxes contain measurement sites and many grid boxes over ocean surface do not. Each team that estimates GMT (e.g. GHCN and Jones et al.) uses its own method (* remember, this method is not privvy to independant analysis) for estimating the temperature in each grid box. Clearly, not all boxes are treated the same because some contain measurement sites and others don't.
A correct method for estimating the temperature in each grid box would remove any problems of changing numbers of measurement sites in a grid box. However, it would alter the (unknown) inherent error of the temperature estimate for the grid box (and hence of the GMT estimate).
This treatment of the grid boxes is a much more serious problem than measurement errors at sites or the UHI.
Indeed, the compilers of the GMT data sets admit their methods create spurious trends (ref. Vose et al., 2004). Their methods include integrating measurements into mean values for regions over the Earth's surface called 'grid boxes'. And the integrations cause trend problems for individual grid boxes. Vose et al. state that when the GHCN and Jones et al. trends are compared at the grid box level then 9.3% of grid cells display "discrepant trends". In other words, the integration of measurements into grid boxes causes 9.3% of grid boxes to have trends with opposite sign. (!!!)
ref. Vose RS, Wuertz D, Peterson TC & Jones PD, "An intercomparison of trends in surface air temperature analyses at the global, hemispheric, and grid-box scale", GRL (2004).
Did anybody bother to read and dissect the Climate Change Science Program Issues Report on Climate Models paper I posted?
Here are some relevant gems:
Regarding natural variability, from page 3 of the Executive summary.
First they say this:
"The possibility that natural variability has been a significant contributor to the detailed time evolution seen in the global temperature record is plausible but still difficult to address with models, given the large differences in characteristics of the natural decadal variability between models."
In short, temperature variations on the 10-30 year scale may be natural, but we can't say because the models contradict one another. So we simply do not understand natural variability on the 10-30 year scale. But the only warming in the last 70 years, the warming that AGW is mostly based on, is a roughly 30 year period.
And in an attempt to save AGW they say:
"While natural variability may very well be relevant to observed variations on the scale of 10 to 30 years, no models show any hint of generating large enough natural, unforced variability on the 100-year time scale to compete with explanations that the observed century-long warming trend has been predominantly forced."
But of course we know what is the likely unforced cause on the 100-year scale, if there is one, namely ocean circulation. This is not included in the models because we do not have an ocean GCM.
!!!!!
And, another contradiction, on page 3 of the Executive Summary.
First they say this: "Models forced by the observed well-mixed greenhouse gas concentrations, volcanic aerosols, estimates of variations in solar energy incidence, and anthropogenic aerosol concentrations are able to simulate the recorded 20th Century global mean temperature in a plausible way."
Note the reference to anthropogenic aerosols, which are essential to the so-called "plausible" simulation.
But in the very next paragraph they say this: "Uncertainties in the climatic effects of manmade aerosols (liquid and solid particles suspended in the atmosphere) constitute a major stumbling block in quantitative attribution studies and in attempts to use the observational record to constrain climate sensitivity."
In short we do not understand the effects of aerosols well enough to carry out the so-called plausible simulation! Or rather, we can guess a value that makes the simulation seem plausible. With unknown forcings of opposite sign we can get any answer we want.
!!!!!
With this fresh in our minds I will address the following from Hermit:
Quote:| Meanwhile, the world is indubitably warming (infra red satellite measurements), ice masses are indubitably decreasing (satellite gavity measurements), year-by-year record temperatures continue to be set and CO2 and Methane levels have soared. These are all measurable things, although the necessary analysis is complex. None-the-less, they are quantifiable. |
.....
Quote:| And unfortunately for any attempt by misguided ducks to peck the AGCC theory to death, no matter how many infinistesimals are used, any analysis runs up against the equally hard fact that according to the literature, tthe measured variations in solar output account for less than 15% of the measured temperature changes we have observed. |
Without wishing to dispute this, solar is only one natural forcing Hermit. C'mon, you can do better than this ...
Quote:| AGCC explains this and correlates what we are observing across many fioelds and disciplines. |
Considering that the earth has been hotter (and colder) in the past, which natural forcings accounted for this warming, and why are they not a factor in the current warming? If your claim that "AGCC explains this and correlates what we are observing across many fioelds and disciplines" is true, then you will have no difficulty in suppling the evidence that demonstrates the discernible difference between the natural forcing and the anthropogenic forcing on the recent warming.
But to my knowledge no such evidence exist, and not only that, but neither does an ocean GCM and therefore ocean circulation is not included in the models.
So, while my analogy may fail (that was great BTW), it does not make your leap of faith any less a leap, or any less faithful.
- iolo
... who wishes to note in reply to, "Without fully comprehending the field or the models, I can accept that every in-field expert I know (and through colleagues and family, I know a bunch of in-field experts on 4 continents)", that the 'in-field experts' he knows disagree with Hermits experts, and yet more experts 'in the field' weyken that the earth has been cooling since the Climatic Optimum of ca. 8,000 YBP, not warming as is suggested, and that this also appears to be in accord with past interglacials.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #176 on: 2008-08-02 15:18:26 » |
|
[Blunderov] Some questions. If the outpouring of carbon into the atmosphere is having no effect on climate change, then what effect is it having? If it is having no effect at all, then by what mechanism does this (improbable) re-balancing occur?* Surely there is a burden of proof here?
Correlation is not causation. But we have to reckon with probability. What are the odds that what we are doing has had a negligible effect on this enclosed system - this Mathusian bell jar? Astronomical I would guess. I repeat. Surely there is a burden of proof here? Common sense seems to demand an explanation.
Best Regards.
*Another question: but is it a scientific question? (I ask merely for information.)
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #177 on: 2008-08-02 18:37:36 » |
|
[Fritz]The Document is captive on the website but open to read at the site; it talks to the question I had wondered about; who might gain advantage from the push of global warming.
Unfortunately and maybe to my detriment I get uncomfortable whenever the media and politicians lay claim to a truth about anything, let alone the future my son will have in store.
Interest Groups and International Climate Change Policy
[Fritz]This DOC seems to have some resonable ideas that you all have talked about, but is it valid ?
My thanks to [Hermit][Iolo][Bl.][WW][Mo] and that [Lucifer]; for your ongoing inputs and ideas
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #178 on: 2008-08-02 18:45:44 » |
|
Quote:| [Fritz]The Document is captive on the website but open to read at the site; it talks to the question I had wondered about; who might gain advantage from the push of global warming. |
Found a PDF copy of "Interest Groups and International Climate Change Policy"
Fritz
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:The Flipping Point
« Reply #179 on: 2008-08-03 04:51:25 » |
|
[Blunderov] Some questions. If the outpouring of carbon into the atmosphere is having no effect on climate change, then what effect is it having? If it is having no effect at all, then by what mechanism does this (improbable) re-balancing occur?* Surely there is a burden of proof here?
[Hermit] Nice questions. I don't know the answers. I don't even know why anyone might speculate that it does, simply because, from what I do know, supported by some back of an envelope calculations (infra), I think there is good reason to keep a skeptical eye on our friend Iola's assertions and claims (and it should be remembered that I was only recently convinced to change my mind on the trend of GCC having spent years warning people to move toward the equator to be ready for the Ice Age that seemed to me to be rationally imminent. A change caused at least in part by the Ginko study I mention below).
[Hermit] Here are my primary concerns about the latest claims:
[Hermit] The energy released from fossil fuels per year is equivalent to 300 years of planetary biomass increase (or the equivalent of about 20% of the biomass on the planet converted to fuel). So where is the carbon being "recycled" to, by what process, and why can't we measure this extremely significant mass change?
[Hermit] All fossil fuels were formed in the Carboniferous Period of the Paleozoic Era, a period regarded as having lasted from about 360 MYBP to 286 MYBP or 74 million years. By definition at Peak we will have run through half of it - or about 47 million years of natural sequestration efforts. How come it took so long to sequester all this carbon if it is being sequestered much faster this time around. If it happened at similar rates, what happened to the huge stores of it? Are we back to the concept that the core of our planet houses an enormous diamond (it doesn't, the mass density is all wrong for that)?
[Hermit] We have seen atmospheric greenhouse gases climbing throughout the period we have been measuring them. From a study of the stomata in Ginko trees, published in Nature in mid 1981, looking at the measurable and measured stomata size which today directly correlates with CO2 levels, we not only know that we are seeing a sudden and rapid rise in CO2 levels, despite these new claims, but we also know that the only time that atmospheric CO2 has been low in the entire Phanerozoic eon it has coincided with major ice ages. If CO2 is being "recycled" at an accelerated rate now in contradiction to multiple sources (implying a massive and global conspiracy to what point?) and so causing a "cooling" effect contradicting multiple sources (again implying a massive and global conspiracy), why are we experiencing record temperatures year after year and why do Ginko trees appear to be reacting to increased CO2 levels? Or is this yet another massive and global conspiracy, this time not even excluding the trees?
Kind Regards
Hermit
(up to my eyebrows in "stuff" which is why this interesting discussion is not seeing more input from me.)
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
apsa03_proceeding_64400.PDF
