4
   

ClimateGate: Global Warming Melt-Down

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 05:50 pm
@farmerman,
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Look at the different placement of the warmups and cooldowns from the Vostsok Ice sheet cores. The red is dust
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 07:03 pm
@Ionus,
If you dump a bucket of water into the river, it is obvious that the flow of the water fall is going to increase. The question is whether or not the increase is significant.

We know that carbon dioxide, etc. are greenhouse gases. Human activity increases green house gases (I suppose). Has the result been significant, or just one more bucket of water in a great big river?
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 07:10 pm
@roger,
I like the anology. The problem with the anti Global Warming position has been little catchy examples are needed if we are to beat the plethora of cliches from the greenies.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 11:20 am
I think another factor behind all this is the fascination of contemporary researchers with numerical modelling. The many new algorithms developed over the past 50 years and the ubiquitous power of modern computing make the temptation to turn a little new data into an attractive and publishable paper with new "findings" on long-term atmospheric and oceanic trends is often irresistable.

However these new numerical thermal & transport models necessarily retain the basic highly coupled nonlinearity implicit in all fluid dynamics - and that means sensitive dependence on initial conditions and chaos. The global numerical weather model first ran faster than real time in about 1968. At that time fairly accurate weather forecasts could be produced for about five days into the future. After that the models produced data that generally looked like typical weather patterns, but bore only a random relation to what actually occurred. Now after 20 or so cycles of Moore's law and the associated explosion of computing power we have a finer grid, but the same limitations: the model breaks down after about eight days.

Despite this we are asked to believe in century or longer forecasts from these modellers. Can people really be that stupid? The answer is yes, particularly when the author's desire for acclaim, success or advancement is involved. As for the reaction of the consuming public, one need only consider the enduring validity of stories like Aesop's mice proposing to bell the cat, or Hans Christian Andersen's story of the Emperor's new clothes.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 04:25 pm
More...

Large sums of climate cash simply missing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8379305.stm

Big Bucks Involved in ClimateGate:
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/25/11915496-sun.html

The Environmental Agenda:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html

Fox: Why YOU should be pissed:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/




0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 05:16 am
Inhofe: Cap/Trade is dead:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html

Quote:

The recently disclosed emails and documents from University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit compromise the integrity of the United Nations' global warming reports.

So declares Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, taking a few minutes away from a Thanksgiving retreat with his family. "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in." ...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 06:57 am
@georgeob1,
The geologic research associated with ice cores, varving layers, palludal sediment coring, sequential vulcanism cores, all carry data that clearly show the relationships between climate and its stratigraphic subtended chemistry. The data shows that climates cyclically warms up for thousands of years, peaks, and then descends just as rapidly.

The function implicit in much of the climatological modelling that is fucked up (IMHO not being more familiar with climate modelling than reading AGI pubs), is that ALL the models seem to require that climate change is a DEPENDSENT vairable to "greenhouse gas contents" and that CO2 is a "driving greenhouse gas".
From what Ive seen in micro stratigraphy is that greenhouse gas entrainment is a consequence to climate wrming, not a cause of it.

Any thoughts?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 08:46 am
@farmerman,
Quote:

From what Ive seen in micro stratigraphy is that greenhouse gas entrainment is a consequence to climate wrming, not a cause of it.

Any thoughts?


Yeah, you just hit the nail straight on the head. That's the most basic feature of the big lie which Algor and others have been putting out.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 08:48 am
Documents apparently not stolen:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/steve-milloy-climategate%E2%80%99s-perry-mason-moment-pjm-exclusive/

Quote:

What’s the real smoking gun among the emails allegedly “hacked” from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit? We’ll get to that in a moment, but let’s first address the alarmists’ first line of defense " that the emails were stolen, and more than likely by some dastardly skeptic.

Since news of embarrassing, if not incriminating emails broke last Friday, it has become clear that the CRU computer system was not “hacked” and the emails were not stolen. In fact, the file containing the emails had been assembled by CRU staff in preparation for compliance with a Freedom of Information request. The file was then stored in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer network " making it just a matter of time before someone discovered it. Why the file was so stored may never be known, but that’s not really what’s important.

Nothing illegal or unethical was done to affect the file’s release.

Moving on....



0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 01:04 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
...The function implicit in much of the climatological modelling that is fucked up (IMHO not being more familiar with climate modelling than reading AGI pubs), is that ALL the models seem to require that climate change is a DEPENDSENT vairable to "greenhouse gas contents" and that CO2 is a "driving greenhouse gas".

That's not true of the newest 3D and 4D models; it wasn't even true in the nuclear winter and limited nuclear war scenarios back in the '80s.

Since then (in addition to better, faster, computational power) we also have satellite data on duststorms (including on Mars), aerosols (from burning wood or dung, in India and Africa), volcanic dust, other atmospheric pollution, and carbon cycles don't even appear as variables. Only the IPCC, Al Gore, et al, think them of any significance. All mathematical modeling, btw, shows global cooling to be by far the greater danger.
Quote:
Three-dimensional (more properly four-dimensional) GCMs discretise the equations for fluid motion and integrate these forward in time. They also contain parametrisations for processes - such as convection - that occur on scales too small to be resolved directly. More sophisticated models may include representations of the carbon and other cycles.

and
Quote:
A General Circulation Model (GCM) is a mathematical model of the general circulation of a planetary atmosphere or ocean and based on the Navier-Stokes equations on a rotating sphere with thermodynamic terms for various energy sources (radiation, latent heat). These equations are the basis for complex computer codes commonly used for simulating the atmosphere or ocean of the Earth
Earth

Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Earth is the largest of the terrestrial planets in the Solar System in diameter, mass and density. It is also referred to as the World and Wiktionary:Terra.Note that by International Astronomical Union convention, the term "Terra" is used for naming extensive land masses, rather...
. Atmospheric and Oceanic GCMs (AGCM and OGCM) are key components of Global Climate Models along with sea-ice and land-surface components.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Global_climate_model#encyclopedia
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 01:35 pm
@High Seas,
So then you agree with me that climate changes as evidenced from all paleodata , do not agree with an anthropogenic stimulant, and being in a cycle of warming is not a man made catastrophe.


BTW--the GFDL model , which is a discreteized time 3-D model, uses CO2 as an input. This model has been in use as a "forensic " tool like many other models.

Im curious how the revelations of the recent past will have on appeals procedures on several cases involving discharges of these gases.

.

High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 02:09 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

So then you agree with me that climate changes as evidenced from all paleodata , do not agree with an anthropogenic stimulant, and being in a cycle of warming is not a man made catastrophe.

I'm a mathematical modeler (so have no opinion on paleogeological data) but reach the same conclusion you do and know of no econometrician who disagrees. As to the specific app. of the computer model you mention, anyone can try anything as an input, see if it messes up more than it explains, but that proves nothing. Btw, if Al Gore were even remotely on target, we could always start a mini nuclear war or shoot sulphur into the atmosphere, as those 2 economists are suggesting - as a joke!
Quote:
Though Levitt and Dubner couldn’t have read “Our Choice,” they nevertheless manage to anticipate Gore’s position. The two argue that his views are the ones that rest on magical thinking. “If you think like a cold-blooded economist instead of a warm-hearted humanist, Gore’s reasoning doesn’t track,” they write. “It’s not that we don’t know how to stop polluting the atmosphere. We don’t want to stop, or aren’t willing to pay the price.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert?currentPage=all#ixzz0Y5oJMkuQ


The most important factor in a model (whence the reference I quote) was to the quantitative robustness of the mathematical structure per se.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 03:10 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
....
Im curious how the revelations of the recent past will have on appeals procedures on several cases involving discharges of these gases.

CO2 is a harmless gas; it's warming effect is less than a fraction of 1% of the main "greenhouse gas", water vapor. Pollution with heavy metals is the real danger however - let's hope this idiotic Co2 panic is now gone so we can finally focus on what really matters. Btw, the chief "climatologist" in that East Anglia university seems to have had a really unscientific approach towards his model inputs <G>
Quote:
Prof Jones, whose department has for years refused to release its raw data on temperatures, wrote another email in which he said sceptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone". By chance, he now admits he has "accidentally" deleted some of the raw data.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6672875/Whos-to-blame-for-Climategate.html
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 03:33 pm
@High Seas,
PS we may have to wait until Sequoia, a new supercomputer, starts operating in 2012 (and btw sorry for typo in first line of previous post):
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/images/2009/02/02/graphsupercomputer_4.jpg
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/supercomputer/
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 03:57 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
CO2 is a harmless gas; it's warming effect is less than a fraction of 1% of the main "greenhouse gas", water vapor. Pollution with heavy metals is the real danger however -
Ive always said that ,(with the exception of the heavy metals) but, from a more reasonable standpoint, why hasnt the fact that CO2 and methane are actually not "leading indicators" at all.
If we seem to concur about the "obvious" where has all the momentum come from to disallow reasonable science to prevail? Its not Al Gore, hes not that smart or an organizational genius.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 04:00 pm
Really interesting bit on the BBC regarding living soil and how much carbon it contains. Living soil is full of compost and roots of plants, it contains 3 times the amount of carbon living plants can absorb. Scientists believe 1/4 of the worlds landmass if degraded, imagine what could be done if the soil, or land is replanted with native plants and or any plants.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 05:47 pm
@farmerman,
I too have seen the geohistorical data on teperature and CO2 concentrations and noted the evident phase lag of CO2, particularly at the max/min points. Unfortunately I don't prtend to have an understanding of that either way.

The qualitative character of the carbon cycle is well enough known. The idea that in burning coal and petroleum we are reintroducing massive quantities of previously sequestered carbon into the cycle and that is likely a factor in the observed increase in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is certainly plausible - even convincing. However, there are so many other factors influencing the carbon cycle, and more broadly, influencing both the thermal (IR) reflectivity of the atmosphere as it relates to earths radiation heat loss; as well as factors influencing the solar radiation impinging on the earth and the fractions reflected and absorbed, that I am far from convinced we have any ability to even rank the effects some of the key factors, much less accurately forecast the future.

Both High Seas and I have noted the paradox of numerical modelling in relation to this question. While it is increasingly possible to construct and use ever more sophisticated models of these (mathemadically non-linear and parabolic) processes and do so with with ever finer resolution, it is categorically impossible to know if the results have any meaning whatsoever over the time scales to which they are applied. Not only is the dynamic itself intrinsically unpredictable (though deterministic at least in principle) we don't have anything close to the data required to establish accurate initial conditions.

Much has been made of the recent release of the hacked e-mails from the British research lab. While I don't find any smoking gun in the rather superficial reporting I have seen so far, the results do affirm the effects of human nature at work in academia. Ambitious scientists, like others, seek advancement, notoriety, prominence and acclaim. Clearly connecting your work, however tenuously to the spectre of global warming makes it easier to get assess to current data and get yourself published. Equally clearly avowed skeptics and critics face an uphill climb in these same areas, Certainly this wouldn't be the first scientific orthodoxy that resisted contrary evidence, views and even those who express them.

The intensity of belief in AGW appears among many to go well beyond what they can possibly know or understand. That suggersts other, perhaps cultural and psychological factors may be at work. Europeans appear (to my casual observation) to be particularly affecrted by this. Perhaps that what you get in an increasingly childless, geriatric society. They confound their own decline with that of the planet.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 06:13 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I am far from convinced we have any ability to even rank the effects some of the key factors, much less accurately forecast the future.
YEP. Ive been amused at how the present mentality promotes an " acidic titer of the oceans" as a result of uptakes of CO2, yet, here we are, in several states , spending gawdawful amounts of money in evaluating crap science like C sequestration when we know imperically that it will have an almost imeasurable effect . The oceans are the big sinks that make all others disappear in the decimals.


We do a lot of groundwater modelling for solute transport under Darcy flow. Im always amused at how, in the discretization, calibration, or several other separate steps, we can make almost any model say what we wish it to.(We can create a mathematical modelling output which varies from reality but does it with great "stability").
I often go into court armed with forensic data that is able to tear gw flow or transport models apart . Forensic data is that which can be measured in discrete physical or chemical properties of the consequent system, modelling rarely is able to do that unless we wait for the prediction.
Im sorry to say but I still am firmly fixed in my opinion that many models can be " desired outcome based". We use models to help us design catchments or chem controls for leach heaps or capture zone design for contaminated ground water. I still demand that, before we commit funds to a design, we get outside opinions to tear our model efforts apart so we (who are so close to the model construction) didnt miss something huge. If we use modflow, Ill want someone whose versed in TOUGH II to play with the results and see whether another model wont change our design field predictions. MOdels scare me when theres a design or an opinion involved.
I think Ive stated this to HS before on another thread but since we were talking viscous (me) v dynamic (he) flows, we didnt agree on a few points





Quote:
Perhaps that what you get in an increasingly childless, geriatric society. They confound their own decline with that of the planet

He He He. However, isnt the Catholic Church squarely behind the AGW scripture?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Nov, 2009 07:15 pm
Regardless of whether CO2 is a leading or lagging indicator, the ice core cycle seems clear; once the temperature reaches a certain point (right about where we are now), something in the environment changes which results in a precipitous drop in temperatures, returning the planet to it's normal (for the last few millennia) ice-age state.

I realize it's a boring observation, because there's nothing we can do about it. But there it is. I doubt that any amount of CO2 that we could pump in to the atmosphere would be sufficient to overwhelm the planets natural tendency to cool down after hitting a certain maximum temperature.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2009 11:25 am
@Ceili,
Courtesy of Mysteryman, on another thread, we now discover there's a new enemy of the planet as per leftist journalist in UK newspaper:
Quote:
Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal?fark
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 09:40:33