74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jan, 2007 05:04 pm
kiss

Quote:
The main international scientific body assessing causes of climate change is closing in on its strongest statement yet linking emissions from burning fossil fuels to rising global temperatures, according to scientists involved in the process.

In fresh drafts of a summary of its next report, the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has said that it is more than 90 percent likely that global warming since 1950 has been driven mainly by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, and that more warming and rising sea levels are on the way.

Some scientists involved in drafting the report confirmed and clarified details but asked not to be identified because it was not finished.

In its last report, published in 2001, the panel concluded that there was a 66 to 90 percent chance that human activities were driving the most recent warming.

The shift in language in the current draft, while subtle, is substantive. If it remains in the final version, scheduled for release in Paris on Feb. 2, it will largely complete a quest that lasted decades to determine if humans are nudging the earth's thermostat in potentially momentous ways.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/world/20climate.html?em&ex=1169442000&en=ce71d6442fb49178&ei=5087%0A
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Jan, 2007 05:25 pm
High Seas wrote:
For some time now I've worked with mathematical models of the type described in this article >

Quote:
...a numerical method based on Wiener Chaos expansion and apply it to solve the stochastic Burgers and Navier-Stokes equations driven by Brownian motion. The main advantage of the Wiener Chaos approach is that it allows for the separation of random and deterministic effects in a rigorous and effective manner. The separation principle effectively reduces a stochastic equation to its associated propagator, a system of deterministic equations for the coefficients of the Wiener Chaos expansion. Simple formulas for statistical moments of the stochastic solution are presented. These formulas only involve the solutions of the propagator. We demonstrate that for short time solutions the numerical methods based on the Wiener Chaos expansion are more efficient and accurate than those based on the Monte Carlo simulations.


> and I've a very hard time understanding why persons with no understanding whatsoever of physical realities or their mathematical expression persist in parroting alleged pseudoscientific nonsense.

For those who think that ANY model, ANYwhere, by ANYbody, modelling the earth's climate attributes more than some TINY fraction of 1% (ONE percent) of the climate to anthropogenic CO2, here's news: NOT SO, and I can PROVE IT.

Silly argument there High Seas.

Anyone that thinks any model shows pressing on the accelerator of a car gives you more than 1% of the speed it has in the universe, not so, and I can prove it. Would you accept the argument that we shouldn't worry about the car crashing because the speed of the earth is so great, what's another 100mph?

The problem is not that anthropogenic CO2 contributes less than 1% of the climate. The problem is the % it contributes to the change in climate. That is why it is called Climate CHANGE not just climate. Lets try to be intellectually honest here HS.
0 Replies
 
Clary
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jan, 2007 02:07 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/
is clear and interesting
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Jan, 2007 04:40 pm
came back from lake ontario an hour ago . even though it was
minus 22 C overnight , there is still no ice on the lake .
i guess the water is just not sufficiently cold for a freezeup .
there were still a lot of ducks paddling around and feeding happily -
do they know something we don't ?
hbg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 08:48 am
Climate scientists feeling the heat
Houston Chronicle
by Eric Berger

Excerpted (Note at the end the discussion on peer pressure when it comes to peer review):

. . . .Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.
Young and old tension

Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.
And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."
ENTIRE PIECE HERE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 08:56 am
Foxfyre wrote:
(Note at the end the discussion on peer pressure when it comes to peer review)


Right. One of those three or four scientists mentioned that personal impression:

Quote:
Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 09:07 am
Some use anecdotal evidence as proof. This writer did not do that but rather used it appropriately as illustration.

Some might say it is insignificant. And some might see the writer's point apart from his illustration and use it as an invitation to explore further to see if it is indeed widespread in the scientific community.

Some writers are blatantly biased and make no attempt at objectivity. And some present more balanced analysis. The writer of the piece I posted this morning appears to be in that latter camp.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 09:53 am
blatham wrote:
kiss

Quote:

[.........]
In its last report, published in 2001, the panel concluded that there was a 66 to 90 percent chance that human activities were driving the most recent warming.



Blatham - that means what it says: "...driving the most recent warming." That's the 2nd or 3rd derivative of the model, not the climate determinants themselves. My statement stands precisely as written.

Kiss back.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 09:59 am
Quote:

[.........]
In its last report, published in 2001, the panel concluded that there was a 66 to 90 percent chance that human activities were driving the most recent warming.

Beyond the math, and just so nobody else gets confused: "human activities" include cutting down trees, building cities, damming rivers etc and they are NOT identical to "anthropogenic CO2".

WHY is it so hard for people to understand this simple point?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 10:15 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The writer of the piece I posted this morning appears to be in that latter camp.


That certainly might be so. Do you know if any of Roger Pielke's publications are online or did you read them in magazines only?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 10:21 am
LOL Parados - please don't keep that opinion to yourself: call the Los Alamos labs instantly.

They've been modelling our nuclear arsenal using the very mathematical technique I described. The same model is in use for supernova explosions and climate forecasts, inter alia. According to you, we should resume testing by actual thermonuclear explosions? You'll find few takers on this thread <G>



http://flash.uchicago.edu/website/home/img/rayleigh_taylor.jpg
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 10:41 am
P.S. This is actually a really important subject, rarely covered in the news:

Quote:
The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) proposal drew on aspects of many weapons from the stockpile and pulled them together in a novel design that has never undergone testing. he Livermore National Laboratory in California, approached the problem with very different philosophies, nuclear officials and experts said. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) proposal was based on a robust warhead design that had been tested in the 1980s, prior to the nuclear testing moratorium.


http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 12:15 pm
From the frontpage of today's (tomorrow's) The Australian


Quote:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 12:37 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The writer of the piece I posted this morning appears to be in that latter camp.


That certainly might be so. Do you know if any of Roger Pielke's publications are online or did you read them in magazines only?


I don't see that whether Pielke is published in magazines or online is pertinent. Berger quotes him as saying that he felt pressured. Unless you know Pielke to be given to tall tales or flat out lies, that is sufficient to use as an illustration in a discussion of scientific peer pressure. Berger did not submit it as 'proof', but purely as illustration.

If scientific peer pressure is indeed a fact, it would follow that intellectual honesty would require that to be added to the mix in the whole picture, especially when 'scientific consensus' looms large as the best argument we have for AGW.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 12:42 pm
I only asked because he appears in your opinion " to be in that latter camp" = "present more balanced analysis".

I just wanted to read it myself, if possible.

But thanks anyway.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 12:46 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I only asked because he appears in your opinion " to be in that latter camp" = "present more balanced analysis".

I just wanted to read it myself, if possible.

But thanks anyway.


I didn't mention Pielke's opinion. I was discussing Berger's opinion as the one who wrote the piece. I referred to the piece. It was not written by Pielke.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 12:51 pm
Well, then I misunderstood you completely.

Eric Berger is just the science reporter for the Houston Chronicle, enjoying especially "writing about topics like heart surgery -- these guys and gals are really the only rock stars left in science -- as well as basic research, such as genetics and particle physics".
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 01:07 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Well, then I misunderstood you completely.

Eric Berger is just the science reporter for the Houston Chronicle, enjoying especially "writing about topics like heart surgery -- these guys and gals are really the only rock stars left in science -- as well as basic research, such as genetics and particle physics".


Well he may be "just the science reporter" but he still writes a balanced analysis of the subjects he writes about and is not given to wild speculation or suppostiion. In my book that gives him solid credentials as a reporter.

Here is another piece he helped write regarding an upcoming Supreme Court decision. It probably has been mentioned in this thread, but it is something we should watch. READ IT HERE
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 01:20 pm
I don't doubt his journalistic attitudes and merits at all. And for someone, who left univeristy only 9 years ago, he's really an excellent writer.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Jan, 2007 04:29 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
That certainly might be so. Do you know if any of Roger Pielke's publications are online or did you read them in magazines only?
Hi Walter,
R. Pielke senior has a blog called Climate Science where you can find many links to his many publications. Very often, he takes time to reply to your questions.
R. Pielke junior has another blog called Prometheus, more concentrated on political issues around climate change. I know this blog less than the former since I'm more interested in scientific discussions.
My POV is both are sane readings.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 02:59:20