Global warming or not?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

i'm a aerospace/rocket nut for 40 years and my father-in-law has worked on some amazing projects while inthe AF and at Lockheed Martin (MMU program for one)

If you have a link to your brothers work i'd love to read it and i'm sure my FIL would too.

I'm waiting on an email from him with links and such. He's been published a few times, presented a few talks etc so it's had to find the paper I'm after since most of it is gibberish to me!

Will post as soon as I have it for you.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Dulin's Books]

thanks much!

[XNN]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So whilst these models can be very informative and helpful they really can't be seen as empirical evidence and used as "proof" of AGW. Any proof that is discussed should be confined to empirical data and not computer models in my humble opinion.

I agree with most of this statement, although I would argue that the climate modeling/climate observation sides of the equation are perhaps equally useful in climate science. The failure of models has, with targeted or improved observations, often led to new insight into physical climate processes, thus leading to better models, etc.

Climate models, or at the very least, the atmospheric general circulation modeling components of climate models, are quite thoroughly verified on a day-to-day basis... as weather prediction models. There has been a clear and documented improvement in forecast skill from numerical weather prediction models over time -- all jokes about weather prediction aside -- and these improvements feed into the climate models. There is a long way to go, but progress is being made.

Another thought. While fully coupled earth systems models are beyond the capability of individual researchers to run -- the complexity and computer resources are immense -- models of intermediate (and lesser) complexity are available to pretty much anyone. A skeptical climate scientist could, for example, code up and insert their own set of cloud feedback processes into such a model, run a suite of simulations, generate results, and write them up.

The point here is that I don't see a raft of simulations hitting peer review that contradict results from the current "consensus" of climate modelers, despite the fact that such results would be quite publishable if they seemed reasonable. Having been involved in the review process (as a reviewer) for a fair number of papers (say 10-20 per year) I haven't personally come across any quashing of well reasoned scientific experiments and simulations in climatology. (The UEA email messages on this point are a bit disturbing to me.)

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by XNN

I agree with most of this statement, although I would argue that the climate modeling/climate observation sides of the equation are perhaps equally useful in climate science. The failure of models has, with targeted or improved observations, often led to new insight into physical climate processes, thus leading to better models, etc.

Climate models, or at the very least, the atmospheric general circulation modeling components of climate models, are quite thoroughly verified on a day-to-day basis... as weather prediction models. There has been a clear and documented improvement in forecast skill from numerical weather prediction models over time -- all jokes about weather prediction aside -- and these improvements feed into the climate models. There is a long way to go, but progress is being made.

Another thought. While fully coupled earth systems models are beyond the capability of individual researchers to run -- the complexity and computer resources are immense -- models of intermediate (and lesser) complexity are available to pretty much anyone. A skeptical climate scientist could, for example, code up and insert their own set of cloud feedback processes into such a model, run a suite of simulations, generate results, and write them up.

The point here is that I don't see a raft of simulations hitting peer review that contradict results from the current "consensus" of climate modelers, despite the fact that such results would be quite publishable if they seemed reasonable. Having been involved in the review process (as a reviewer) for a fair number of papers (say 10-20 per year) I haven't personally come across any quashing of well reasoned scientific experiments and simulations in climatology. (The UEA email messages on this point are a bit disturbing to me.)

Totally agree that modelling would have improved over the years and can be(probably is) very good and accurate. I'm sure it can aid in our understanding and further our knowledge too if used correctly.

You say that the failure of models has, with targeted and improved observations, led to new insight into physical climate processes. I have a couple of questions.
1: I assume by "fail" you mean it comes up with a result that just seems totally wrong or is complete gibberish? Or is there some other type of failure like the program freezes or something?(honest questions as I thought a model simply told you what was supposed to happen so if the model say XYZ will happen then how can that be a "fail" unless we already know what will happen and then why do we need the model?)
2: These targeted and improved observations, are they of the physical processes of the climate or are they of the model? I mean, when the model fails do you just go over the model and tweak it until it doesn't fail anymore by adjusting values and such(and then you have to ask if the model was correct and only failed because it didn't do what we wanted it to or if the model is actually broke, see question 1 above) or do you go out and look at the climate some more and try to work out what is going on in the climate that isn't accounted for in the model and that is why the model failed?

I guess my point goes more towards the fact that modelling is, by its very nature, basically an extrapolation of our understanding and assumptions combined and not empirical data. If that understanding and those assumptions are faulty in any way to begin with, then that will influence the results of the modelling.

As my brothers experiments show, if we don't know the modelling program is fundamentally flawed because of one or more of our assumptions then we wont even question the outcomes of the models will we?(still waiting for links from him, he should be awake in another couple of hours)

Just something to consider when claiming that the science is "settled" is all.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[XNN]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

1: I assume by "fail" you mean it comes up with a result that just seems totally wrong or is complete gibberish? Or is there some other type of failure like the program freezes or something?(honest questions as I thought a model simply told you what was supposed to happen so if the model say XYZ will happen then how can that be a "fail" unless we already know what will happen and then why do we need the model?)

More the former. For example, perhaps weather prediction models systematically fail to develop a certain kind of low pressure system rapidly enough. Scientists could then develop an observational program to intensively observe these events and then use the resulting data to improve the representation of the relevant processes in the model.

The latter is also a valid area of research. Models approximate the continuous natural world discretely, i.e., in finite time steps and at discrete grid points. As a simple example, if the time step is made too large, then the approximation may be poor, the model may be unstable, and it may never converge to a reasonable solution -- it "blows up". Improving the numerical stability of models, for example maintaining the same level of accuracy with a longer time step so that the model can be run faster, is definitely an active area of research.

2: These targeted and improved observations, are they of the physical processes of the climate or are they of the model? I mean, when the model fails do you just go over the model and tweak it until it doesn't fail anymore by adjusting values and such(and then you have to ask if the model was correct and only failed because it didn't do what we wanted it to or if the model is actually broke, see question 1 above) or do you go out and look at the climate some more and try to work out what is going on in the climate that isn't accounted for in the model and that is why the model failed?

Both, kind of... see above.

I guess my point goes more towards the fact that modelling is, by its very nature, basically an extrapolation of our understanding and assumptions combined and not empirical data. If that understanding and those assumptions are faulty in any way to begin with, then that will influence the results of the modelling.

Our understanding and assumptions are, however, informed by empirical observations. When this fails to be the case, then problems can, as you've shown, definitely arise.

I would say that the earth is more heavily observed now, and with a much more diverse set of observing platforms, than ever before, which is very encouraging and, from a scientific perspective, exciting.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by XNN

More the former. For example, perhaps weather prediction models systematically fail to develop a certain kind of low pressure system rapidly enough. Scientists could then develop an observational program to intensively observe these events and then use the resulting data to improve the representation of the relevant processes in the model.

The latter is also a valid area of research. Models approximate the continuous natural world discretely, i.e., in finite time steps and at discrete grid points. As a simple example, if the time step is made too large, then the approximation may be poor, the model may be unstable, and it may never converge to a reasonable solution -- it "blows up". Improving the numerical stability of models, for example maintaining the same level of accuracy with a longer time step so that the model can be run faster, is definitely an active area of research.

Both, kind of... see above.

Thanks, that does make the process clearer.

Originally Posted by XNN

Our understanding and assumptions are, however, informed by empirical observations. When this fails to be the case, then problems can, as you've shown, definitely arise.

Absolutely understanding and assumptions are informed by empirical observations, which is why modelling can be of benefit and can be accurate to a certain degree. However, as you agree, there are( or can be) inherent problems and as such modelling and simulations et al should be considered in light of that fact. That is not to say they should be thrown out altogether though.

Originally Posted by XNN

I would say that the earth is more heavily observed now, and with a much more diverse set of observing platforms, than ever before, which is very encouraging and, from a scientific perspective, exciting.

Agreed.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by fugazied

I have a masters degree and a basic knowledge of science, that is all that is required to sign the 'The Global Warming Petition Project'. I am not a specialist in the field of climatology yet I could both of those petitions. You need to look at the numbers of publishing climatologists who are actively researching the climate change. Anything else is just willful ignorance.

I am sorry, I don't CARE what a Veterinarian, Medical doctors, weatherman, mechanical engineer says about climate change. I want to hear publishing climatologists who research the subject.

It is just madness to even consider those petitions as proof of a massive number of climate change 'scientists' disagreeing with the premise of global warming. Look at the real peer reviewed published science for a change, the stuff climatologists publish, not the Fox news weatherman's blog.

You don't need to be a climatologist to know that the methodology underlying the claims of AGW is corrupt. You don't even have to be a scientist to know that in this particular case.

The methodology is corrupt because (1) the historical data on which AGW claims are based has disappeared, (2) the communications which have been leaked show an effort to conform current data to fit the theory, rather than the other way around, and (3) the peer review process appears to have been compromised.

The essence of science, according to Karl Popper, is not proof, but disproof. That is, a hypothesis, such as AWG, is not a scientific hypothesis unless the proponent can articulate an experiment which could, if successful, disprove the hypothesis. In order for the scientific process to work, the data supporting a scientific conclusion must be made available to everyone and must be capable of being tested and validated.

The sad fact of the matter is that the scientists who should have been attentive to insuring that their data was made available to everyone have carelessly (at best) failed to do so. And because of that, there is no way for other scientists to test their AGW hypothesis. Everyone is just supposed to take the conclusions on faith, and faith has nothing to do with science.

One of the non-scientific problems concerning AGW is that some people seem to have a need to believe in an Apocalypse. And there are enough of them that when they work up a full head of steam, they can drag a lot of other people along with them. The AGW Apocalypse is leading us to take steps that will cripple our economy and quite possibly lower our standard of living.

So, in the interests of giving the Apocalyptic thinkers something more worthy of their concern, let me offer the Yellowstone Supervolcano. Yes, my friends, there really is a gigantic volcano under Yellowstone National Park, and it could blow up at any time with catastrophic effects, including a global winter that would dwarf the claimed effects of AGW. I'm not making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

"The upward movement of the Yellowstone caldera floor—almost 3 inches (7 centimeters) each year for the past three years—is more than three times greater than ever observed since such measurements began in 1923.[16] From mid-Summer 2004 through mid-Summer 2008, the land surface within the caldera has moved upwards, as much as 8 inches at the White Lake GPS station.[17]"

The Geologic Survey says that there's no immediate threat in "the foreseable future," but admits that they can't predict the next eruption. There will, however, be such an eruption, just as there will at some point be earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault. Obviously what we need here is a massive federal government intervention to move everyone located in the Midwest, from the Rockies to the Mississippi, from Canada to the Rio Grande, out of the zone of danger. We probably ought to move people out of California, too, except that...well...who would take them?

This is much more important than AWG. You can adjust to a change in the climate. It's more difficult to adjust to a volcano erupting under your feet.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

...
So, in the interests of giving the Apocalyptic thinkers something more worthy of their concern, let me offer the Yellowstone Supervolcano. Yes, my friends, there really is a gigantic volcano under Yellowstone National Park, and it could blow up at any time with catastrophic effects, including a global winter that would dwarf the claimed effects of AGW. I'm not making this up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

"The upward movement of the Yellowstone caldera floor—almost 3 inches (7 centimeters) each year for the past three years—is more than three times greater than ever observed since such measurements began in 1923.[16] From mid-Summer 2004 through mid-Summer 2008, the land surface within the caldera has moved upwards, as much as 8 inches at the White Lake GPS station.[17]"

The Geologic Survey says that there's no immediate threat in "the foreseable future," but admits that they can't predict the next eruption. There will, however, be such an eruption, just as there will at some point be earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault. Obviously what we need here is a massive federal government intervention to move everyone located in the Midwest, from the Rockies to the Mississippi, from Canada to the Rio Grande, out of the zone of danger. We probably ought to move people out of California, too, except that...well...who would take them?

...

Yes. One of the episodes of "How the Earth was Made" is on Yellowstone. I just happened to watch it again last night. There is evidence that it erupts approximately every 600,000 years or so and it's been 650,000 since the last one.

Run for your lives!!!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

i'm a aerospace/rocket nut for 40 years and my father-in-law has worked on some amazing projects while inthe AF and at Lockheed Martin (MMU program for one)

If you have a link to your brothers work i'd love to read it and i'm sure my FIL would too.

Hey DB,

Here's what my brother had to say when I asked about his paper.......

I think what you're referring to is probably my Ph.D. work. I did a study of the effects of bouyancy on turbulent jet flames in a crossflow. That's when you have a fuel stream runninhg out into a stream of air that blows it to one side. Most people assume that bouyancy is negligible in such a flame but before my work, there was no rigorous analysis of when such an assumption is appropriate. My dissertation looked at developing a way to determine when this effect is significant enough to be considered and provide a way for others to make that decision.

The reason most people neglect this is because it's a giant pain in the ass to deal with from a mathematical standpoint. If I'd known how hard it would be to find a parameter to quantify the effect, let alone determine what value the parameter should have, I'd have chosen something else to work on. I pulled it off though. Was a neat bit of work.

http://repositories.tdl.org/tdl/hand...1514?show=full
http://www.ae.utexas.edu/research/FloImLab/jficf.php

Hope you find it interesting.

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: The bold emphasis is mine because I thought that remark was very pertinant to the recent discussion. re: fitting data to the theory, problems with modelling etc.

[kennyc]

For those who really want to get involved:

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org...redit.a0900145

[pholy]

Yes. One of the episodes of "How the Earth was Made" is on Yellowstone. I just happened to watch it again last night. There is evidence that it erupts approximately every 600,000 years or so and it's been 650,000 since the last one.

Run for your lives!!!

Or go read Verdant Skies at http://www.stevejordanbooks.com/novels.htm It's easier, more interesting, more fun, and just as useful....

It's great

pholy

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pholy

Or go read Verdant Skies at http://www.stevejordanbooks.com/novels.htm It's easier, more interesting, more fun, and just as useful....

It's great

pholy

It's on my to-read list. Didn't know it had to do with yellowstone though.

[bobcdy]

There seems little doubt that the world climate has been warming starting about 1960; evidence is strong about that. A problem, though, is that warming has hesitated for the last 10 years, a feature that doesn't seem compatible with the increase in CO2 proposed as the cause of warming because CO2 has kept increasing during that time period. Couple that with the scandal of missing data used in making models of climate change, that disclosed by the stolen emails of attempts to keep skeptics from publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and the shortness (about 50 years or less) of the warming interval suggests that the case for human-caused warming is not a strong as many have proposed.

I think an unbiased observer would have to conclude that it's plausible that people cause significant climate change but scientific proof at this time is lacking. (this was not one of the alternatives in the options)

As others point out, the fear of climate change strengthens research of alternatives to fossil fuels that are rapidly being consumed; this research is absolutely essential.

[XNN]

Originally Posted by bobcdy

There seems little doubt that the world climate has been warming starting about 1960; evidence is strong about that. A problem, though, is that warming has hesitated for the last 10 years, a feature that doesn't seem compatible with the increase in CO2 proposed as the cause of warming because CO2 has kept increasing during that time period.

Natural climate variability on interannual and decadal time scales means that this isn't really incompatible at all. See, for example,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-t...r-cooling.html

Couple that with the scandal of missing data used in making models of climate change, that disclosed by the stolen emails of attempts to keep skeptics from publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and the shortness (about 50 years or less) of the warming interval suggests that the case for human-caused warming is not a strong as many have proposed.

I work for Canada's meteorological service, which is responsible for our national weather and climate observing network. The data sets that were "destroyed" at UEA in the 80s are still very much present in each nation's data archive. They're not irretrievably lost for eternity. They're just not at CRU anymore. I'd consider this to be a minor problem.

As a scientist, the obfuscation/hiding/deletion of station lists etc. used in the creation of the HadCRUT dataset, as well as some of the tactics employed with respect to journals and editors, etc. are more disturbing.

[bobcdy]

[QUOTE=XNN;681486]Natural climate variability on interannual and decadal time scales means that this isn't really incompatible at all.]

But when the temperature data from about 1850 to 1950 fall within the range of the Medieval Warm Period that occurring prior to the Little Ice Age, then the 10 year hiatus in warming is about 1/6 of the total amount of worrysome warming that has occurred from about 1950 to 2010. This is a pretty significant duration, and only additional years will determine if it is a fluke (natural variability) or the beginning of a longer term trend.

Thus, rather than jump to unwarranted conclusions, we should wait at least a few more years before concluding a long term trend in climate change. And of course, it means that skeptics should have priority in publishing well-documented studies in peer review journals in order to thoroughly examine the problem rather than keeping them on the sidelines and then dismissing their arguments because of lack of publications.