Climate Science

You do not have to be a scientist to know they do not know enough to make the claims they make.

The "science" of climatology is infantile. Ohh it works absolutely great on observed events and by using previous years records to guess what may happen next year. But what it doesn't know is massive compared to what it does know. Anyone claiming they have made a working computer model of our climate that can predict with any accuracy the future out in years is lying, misguided or stupid. THAT is the facts. A scientist you do not have to be to know these things.

Ask anyone that has made a climate model that "predicts" the future to input data from 10 years ago and see if that model recreates what we KNOW happened then. 15 years ago, 20 years ago. If it can not recreate what we already know has happened WHY could it possibly predict what will happen in the future?
 
You do not have to be a scientist to know they do not know enough to make the claims they make.

The "science" of climatology is infantile. Ohh it works absolutely great on observed events and by using previous years records to guess what may happen next year. But what it doesn't know is massive compared to what it does know. Anyone claiming they have made a working computer model of our climate that can predict with any accuracy the future out in years is lying, misguided or stupid. THAT is the facts. A scientist you do not have to be to know these things.

Ask anyone that has made a climate model that "predicts" the future to input data from 10 years ago and see if that model recreates what we KNOW happened then. 15 years ago, 20 years ago. If it can not recreate what we already know has happened WHY could it possibly predict what will happen in the future?

Like I have repeatedly said, I am no scientist. However, even if something can't be predicted with specificity, that doesn't mean that trends can't be identified, and evidence/theories of causation can't be discovered/developed (even if relative attribution is unclear).

Just because we don't know everything doesn't necessarily mean we don't know anything.
 
I am glad that you are on the board Mystic. Thanks for your postings.
Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad I found this board.
Just curious, but are you merely referring to a specific collection of studies that you have looked at, or are you saying that there is a consensus that a complete removal of our effects wouldn't have an appreciable effect, or that no reduction that we could feasibly undertake (even with the best efforts) would have an appreciable effect, or is there no consensus at all?
Good questions. I am interpreting the quantitative differences based on the estimates of total human contribution. Quantitatively, the (impossible) complete removal of our effects would reduce the WORST case scenario . . . but the maximum difference in its likely impact upon human habitat would probably be the equivalent of moving the corn belt in the US to South Dakota versus moving it to Winnipeg, Canada. Any FEASIBLE reductions would be the difference between moving it to just south of Winnipeg at the Canadian /US border versus to Winnipeg, i.e., not very different at all. (This is simply an illustration of the potential difference in effect from complete removal to feasible reduction . . . I have no idea what the actual habitat realignments would be.:eusa_think: )

The habitat disruptions are probably going to be so great anyway (absent the development of some miraculous capabilties in terra-forming) that subjecting generations to the economic and lifestyle hardships necessary to obtain the FEASIBLE reductions would probably be seen by those future generations as pointless and unnecessarily disruptive. They most certainly won't be happy about it in any case, but they will be even more unhappy if their lifestyles and economies were so thoroughly disrupted for such ultimately meaningless differences in outcome.
 
Like I have repeatedly said, I am no scientist. However, even if something can't be predicted with specificity, that doesn't mean that trends can't be identified, and evidence/theories of causation can't be discovered/developed (even if relative attribution is unclear).

Just because we don't know everything doesn't necessarily mean we don't know anything.

Except for the simple fact that in the 70's the same process was used to proclaim a coming Ice Age. The Zealots have proclaimed loudly and repeatedly that in 100 years we will all be broiling to death if we do not destroy our economies.

We do know something, we know that the earth has for its entire history had cycles, some short some long, of temperature changes. We know that cities tend to cause heat sinks, we know that the claims of abnormal rapid heat increase was NOT across all layers of the earths atmosphere, we know that no one actually knows why the heat increase occurred during the 10 to 15 years that it did.

Further we know that anyone that dared provided any negative response to man made global warming was and is character assassinated. That rather then address the science they present a concentrated effort is made to discredit the person.
 
Except for the simple fact that in the 70's the same process was used to proclaim a coming Ice Age. The Zealots have proclaimed loudly and repeatedly that in 100 years we will all be broiling to death if we do not destroy our economies.

We do know something, we know that the earth has for its entire history had cycles, some short some long, of temperature changes. We know that cities tend to cause heat sinks, we know that the claims of abnormal rapid heat increase was NOT across all layers of the earths atmosphere, we know that no one actually knows why the heat increase occurred during the 10 to 15 years that it did.
The anthropogenic proponents (human cause)would say it is the CO2 we produce that is the problem. Unfortunately, with 75% of the planet a huge carbon sink (oceans) that releases its carbon as it is heated . . . and with the bulk of the temperature differential resulting from solar cycles . . . our paltry removal of carbon from the current sinks (oil,coal, natural gas, etc.) used to fuel our economies would be unlikely to account for much in the overall scheme of things EVEN IF those sinks actually comprised the remaining 25% of the planet (which they decidely do not).

Human misconceptions about the SCALE of human activities versus the SCALE of geologic or cosmic phenomena, like the oceans, the mantle, solar radiation, cosmic rays, etc. is rampant. We overestimate our impact and importance geologically . . . even though we have made miraculous breakthroughs and have achieved wonderful capabilities to affect our lives and our world.
Further we know that anyone that dared provided any negative response to man made global warming was and is character assassinated. That rather then address the science they present a concentrated effort is made to discredit the person.
That, I'm afraid, is a constant in human systems, not just science. Dissent is not well tolerated once a consensus begins to develop, rightly or wrongly.
 
The whole debate about global warming is skewed.

These are facts:

An overwhelming majority of modern science concludes that humans have an impact on the climate.

Politicians don't want action until they have proof.

Proof won't come in our lifetime.

Conclusion:

Short term economical desicions make us do the wrong thing. Any system that we tamper with gets fouled up (Due to our lack of comprehension). So the only right action is to start reducing our impact. Until we have proof we should be careful - not about our lifestyle but about this planet.

Not too hard to understand is it?

Most probably something unforseen will get us anyway.
 
Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad I found this board. Good questions. I am interpreting the quantitative differences based on the estimates of total human contribution. Quantitatively, the (impossible) complete removal of our effects would reduce the WORST case scenario . . . but the maximum difference in its likely impact upon human habitat would probably be the equivalent of moving the corn belt in the US to South Dakota versus moving it to Winnipeg, Canada. Any FEASIBLE reductions would be the difference between moving it to just south of Winnipeg at the Canadian /US border versus to Winnipeg, i.e., not very different at all. (This is simply an illustration of the potential difference in effect from complete removal to feasible reduction . . . I have no idea what the actual habitat realignments would be.:eusa_think: )

The habitat disruptions are probably going to be so great anyway (absent the development of some miraculous capabilties in terra-forming) that subjecting generations to the economic and lifestyle hardships necessary to obtain the FEASIBLE reductions would probably be seen by those future generations as pointless and unnecessarily disruptive. They most certainly won't be happy about it in any case, but they will be even more unhappy if their lifestyles and economies were so thoroughly disrupted for such ultimately meaningless differences in outcome.

Sorry, just a couple of questions and a comment.

First, are these things that you are writing (about the eventual effect of climate change and the possibility of a human response to it) your opinion, the opinion of some studies, the consensus of the scientific community? Is much of it still relatively unresearched? Doesn’t matter a great deal to our discussion (well, maybe a little), but it is important for me personally to know.

Second, over what time period are we discussing? If human activity has an effect on climate change through the addition of CO2 and other gases to the atmosphere; and if worldwide, these activities are increasing; then why wouldn't the magnitude of change continue to increase? If we continue to increase our atmospheric contributions over the next 200 years, how will this differ than if we increase it only over the next 20?

You speak of subjecting future generations to economic and lifestyle hardship in an attempt to make feasible reductions, but I don't believe that the level of sacrifice (especially when discussed in the time frame of a generation) is something that is knowable. First, it would require knowledge about the efficacy of technologies that don't yet exist. Second, it sort of rests on the assumption that all changes by industry and consumers will produce costs, without a corresponding economic, material or SoL benefit. I don't know why this would necessarily be the case.

Finally, when talking about what could be accomplished with our feasible efforts, I think it would be better to talk about the Sahel of Africa than the corn belt of the midwest. If we extend the consequences in the US to Africa (which may not be accurate) and maintain the assumption that the changes would extend roughly 120km (about Winnipeg to the border), then this would have a devastating impact on the millions of people that live on the border of the Sahara, in the Sahel, and even south of the Sahel, as farmers and grazers migrate south from the soil degraded areas of these regions to the already over-extended farmlands just to the south. Even this, doesn't touch on subsistence farmers in mid-Asia, the tropical belt, the potential effects on storm patterns in areas with monsoon seasons.

I don't know (except with respect to Africa) what the potential consequences are of climate change, but in light of this, Winnipeg to the US border sounds like it could be important to a great number of people, and that is assuming that this is the best we could do.
 
Sorry, just a couple of questions and a comment.

First, are these things that you are writing (about the eventual effect of climate change and the possibility of a human response to it) your opinion, the opinion of some studies, the consensus of the scientific community? Is much of it still relatively unresearched? Doesn’t matter a great deal to our discussion (well, maybe a little), but it is important for me personally to know.
The eventual effects of climate change are a consensus. The possibility of a meaningful human response to it is not . . . as there are different opinions about what can be possible with technological development (terra-forming, etc.) and what level of amelioration would be worth trying for. Much of it is still unresearched. The mere fact that we are definitely exascerbating the problem is sufficient for many scientists to push for trying to reduce our impact to lengthen the time before the major effects are encountered (delaying tacic).
Second, over what time period are we discussing? If human activity has an effect on climate change through the addition of CO2 and other gases to the atmosphere; and if worldwide, these activities are increasing; then why wouldn't the magnitude of change continue to increase? If we continue to increase our atmospheric contributions over the next 200 years, how will this differ than if we increase it only over the next 20?
As I said, these questions are currently in dispute because we don't have robust or rigorous climate models to make these kinds of predictions. The magnitude of the differences are the issue . . . the best I could do is to analogize it for you. We are trying to determine the impact that 1000 fans would have on the windspeed and devastation from a hurricane. There is no real consensus.
You speak of subjecting future generations to economic and lifestyle hardship in an attempt to make feasible reductions, but I don't believe that the level of sacrifice (especially when discussed in the time frame of a generation) is something that is knowable.
It isn't.
First, it would require knowledge about the efficacy of technologies that don't yet exist. Second, it sort of rests on the assumption that all changes by industry and consumers will produce costs, without a corresponding economic, material or SoL benefit. I don't know why this would necessarily be the case.
It wouldn't.
Finally, when talking about what could be accomplished with our feasible efforts, I think it would be better to talk about the Sahel of Africa than the corn belt of the midwest. If we extend the consequences in the US to Africa (which may not be accurate) and maintain the assumption that the changes would extend roughly 120km (about Winnipeg to the border), then this would have a devastating impact on the millions of people that live on the border of the Sahara, in the Sahel, and even south of the Sahel, as farmers and grazers migrate south from the soil degraded areas of these regions to the already over-extended farmlands just to the south. Even this, doesn't touch on subsistence farmers in mid-Asia, the tropical belt, the potential effects on storm patterns in areas with monsoon seasons.
Almost nothing we do will prevent disaster in such areas. The fact that the developing world will be contributing more CO2 than the developed world could conceivably reduce just makes the whole effort moot. Cost/benefit analyses are not even possible with the current level of knowledge.
I don't know (except with respect to Africa) what the potential consequences are of climate change, but in light of this, Winnipeg to the US border sounds like it could be important to a great number of people, and that is assuming that this is the best we could do.
Unfortunately, the minimum effects (best case scenarios) on many habitats will likely still be devastating . . . we just don't know with any certainty how bad they will eventually be. MY illustration of the Winnipeg/Border was just an approximation of the relative differences we are talkng about quantitatively. Our understanding and models are insufficient to make any solid predictions about actual habitat changes.
 
The eventual effects of climate change are a consensus. The possibility of a meaningful human response to it is not . . . as there are different opinions about what can be possible with technological development (terra-forming, etc.) and what level of amelioration would be worth trying for. Much of it is still unresearched. The mere fact that we are definitely exascerbating the problem is sufficient for many scientists to push for trying to reduce our impact to lengthen the time before the major effects are encountered (delaying tacic). As I said, these questions are currently in dispute because we don't have robust or rigorous climate models to make these kinds of predictions. The magnitude of the differences are the issue . . . the best I could do is to analogize it for you. We are trying to determine the impact that 1000 fans would have on the windspeed and devastation from a hurricane. There is no real consensus. It isn't. It wouldn't. Almost nothing we do will prevent disaster in such areas. The fact that the developing world will be contributing more CO2 than the developed world could conceivably reduce just makes the whole effort moot. Cost/benefit analyses are not even possible with the current level of knowledge. Unfortunately, the minimum effects (best case scenarios) on many habitats will likely still be devastating . . . we just don't know with any certainty how bad they will eventually be. MY illustration of the Winnipeg/Border was just an approximation of the relative differences we are talkng about quantitatively. Our understanding and models are insufficient to make any solid predictions about actual habitat changes.

And what about the claim temperatures have stopped rising as fast as they had the previous 15 years? After all the total change over the last 100 years was not remarkable at all Just that a large part of it seems to have occurred in the last 15 years or so.
 
In response to some questons asked:

The oceans emit more co2 as they warm, but they also absorb more co2 when the concentration in the atmosphere is greater compared to the surface ocean. Currently because of the high levels of co2 in the atmosphere, the oceans are absorbing more co2 than they emit each year. Human activity has contributed about 25% of co2 in the atmosphere today (the 30%+ rise from 280ppm preindustrial levels to 380ppm today)

It was asked whether climate over the last few decades can be replicated by climate models when they are fed the observed inputs over that time period. Climate models that include rise in greenhouse gases are able to replicate the general temperture trend over the 20th century temperature well. Models that leave out greenhouse gases are only able to replicate the trend up to about 1980.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf


If you look at the warming trend over the last 30 years there's little indication it's come to an end now. Look at the CRU global temperature record (this CRU record is the closest to supporting the idea that warming has stopped - the GISS and NOAA records show more upward movement in the moving average over the last couple years):
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

The moving average trend (the black line) bobs up and down in a wave with a length of about 10 years. You can see that over the last few decades there have been a number of times when the moving average has fallen slightly (early 80s, early 90s) and risen again. With those regular cyclic bumps going on in the overall trend we could simply be currently at the bottom of a bump. Eg even though the moving average in recent time looks like it has gone flat for an uncharacteristic period of time, it won't be distinguishable from the bottom of one of the past bumps if warmer years start again by 2010.

Seeing as we are on this CRU global temperature graph, the Morano article earlier in this thread quotes Bob Carter:

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

"The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %)"

If you look at the CRU global trend linked above (which is the one Bob Carter is refering too) you will see what he means by "no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998", although like me you might find that more than a bit misleading the way he's putting it, especially considering 1998 was abnormally warm due to a strong El Nino. You can hardly say the longterm warming trend has stopped just because one year 8 years ago had a strong El Nino. But worse I think is that while he ignores the el nino warming explaination for the strong 1998 in the CRU record, he then goes on to state that he corrects for the 1998 el nino in the satellite record (by doing that he reduces the warming trend over the 30 years of satellite measurements). To selectively filter data like that is not very impressive, especially to say it in front of a senate commitee, although apparently he could get away with it.


Coincidentally (going off on another tangent here), the Camp and Tung paper (http://www.amath.washington.edu/~cdcamp/Pub/Camp_Tung_GRL_2007b.pdf) that Marc Morano mentions in his article, effectively makes the case that the bobbing cycle over the surface temperature record is due to the solar cycle (they don't however make the case that the long term warming trend over the last few decades is due to solar activity - in fact the co-author Tung has specifically said that skeptics of global warming will seize on the paper even though it actually supports the solar forcing as used in climate models. So you could say that Morano has really just misrepresented what the paper says by implying it contradicts manmade global warming. But notice again, just like Carter, Morano doesn't actually say anything untrue. Both Carter and Morano mislead by proxy in those particular cases by stating and omitting facts so that the readers will draw their own wrong conclusions)
 
I wouldn't be too enthralled with the NOAA and GISS data just yet. If they lift the veil of secrecy around their adjustment algorithms for bad data (in scientific terms a red flag for here comes the BS) so that independent scientific evaluations can be made about the validity and robustness of their techniques . . . then maybe. Here's an excerpt from a blog dedicated to revealing some of their shenanigans and keeping the pressure on to open up their techniques to the time-honored tradition of open scientific scrutiny.
An Interesting Source of Man-Made Global Warming

The US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) reports about a 0.6C temperature increase in the lower 48 states since about 1940. There are two steps to reporting these historic temperature numbers. First, actual measurements are taken. Second, adjustments are made after the fact by scientists to the data. Would you like to guess how much of the 0.6C temperature rise is from actual measured temperature increases and how much is due to adjustments of various levels of arbitrariness? Here it is, for the period from 1940 to present in the US:

  • Actual Measured Temperature Increase:. . . . .0.1C
    Adjustments and Fudge Factors: . . . . . . . . . .0.5C

    Total Reported Warming: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.6C

Yes, that is correct. Nearly all the reported warming in the USHCN data base, which is used for nearly all global warming studies and models, is from human-added fudge factors, guesstimates, and corrections.

I know what you are thinking - this is some weird skeptic's urban legend. Well, actually it comes right from the NOAA web page which describes how they maintain the USHCN data set. Below is the key chart from that site showing the sum of all the plug factors and corrections they add to the raw USHCN measurements.0

Of course this isn't the relevant part. The actual adjustment algorithms they use for what they consider "bad data" (instead of just excluding it) is where the significant changes in temperature ranging from 6 to 10 degrees C in the raw data can occur. Apparently, they refuse to share their algorithms with the general scientific community . . . an odd posture for objective scientists.
 
I wouldn't be too enthralled with the NOAA and GISS data just yet. If they lift the veil of secrecy around their adjustment algorithms for bad data (in scientific terms a red flag for here comes the BS) so that independent scientific evaluations can be made about the validity and robustness of their techniques . . . then maybe. Here's an excerpt from a blog dedicated to revealing some of their shenanigans and keeping the pressure on to open up their techniques to the time-honored tradition of open scientific scrutiny.
An Interesting Source of Man-Made Global Warming

The US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) reports about a 0.6C temperature increase in the lower 48 states since about 1940. There are two steps to reporting these historic temperature numbers. First, actual measurements are taken. Second, adjustments are made after the fact by scientists to the data. Would you like to guess how much of the 0.6C temperature rise is from actual measured temperature increases and how much is due to adjustments of various levels of arbitrariness? Here it is, for the period from 1940 to present in the US:

  • Actual Measured Temperature Increase:. . . . .0.1C
    Adjustments and Fudge Factors: . . . . . . . . . .0.5C

    Total Reported Warming: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.6C

Yes, that is correct. Nearly all the reported warming in the USHCN data base, which is used for nearly all global warming studies and models, is from human-added fudge factors, guesstimates, and corrections.

I know what you are thinking - this is some weird skeptic's urban legend. Well, actually it comes right from the NOAA web page which describes how they maintain the USHCN data set. Below is the key chart from that site showing the sum of all the plug factors and corrections they add to the raw USHCN measurements.0

Of course this isn't the relevant part. The actual adjustment algorithms they use for what they consider "bad data" (instead of just excluding it) is where the significant changes in temperature ranging from 6 to 10 degrees C in the raw data can occur. Apparently, they refuse to share their algorithms with the general scientific community . . . an odd posture for objective scientists.

Ok sure, the entire industrial revolution has not made a major climate impact and if it has...we dont know as much as we want to, but what I think most people care about are the long term effects of fossile fueld consumption at an annually appreciated rate. Whether the recent spike in tempurature is anthropogenic or not, people often believe that it may someday be too late to reverse the possible effects of our addiction to fossile fuel's when we learn more about climate change.

Personally, I do believe that at an increasing rate, non-renewable energy could have an effect on the climate but not any time soon and not in the oil industry. I believe "peak oil" will occur within the next decade, which will significantly reduce the chances of human influence on climate change. Ofcourse that is assuming we decide to use re-newable sources of energy (like nuclear, solar, hydrogen, ethonal....etc) succeeding peak oil.

What is your take?
 

Forum List

Back
Top