Global Warming Science: A Giant Farce

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As a general proposition, I agree with you.

But how am I as a lay person to know who is legitimate and who is not?

Lebowski states that Lindzen should not be trusted because he accepts some money in the early 1990s. Am I to believe that only Gore's people are to be trusted?

This is my dilemma as a lay person. Who is legitimate? How can I know?

And how do I discern bias?

I trust generally the scientific process, but I must be the only one who sees a potential for abuse or a skewing of findings in order to generate more research dollars.

One of the most important things my graduate level experimental design class taught me was that all too often researcher bias (conscious or otherwise) leads to an experimental design and analysis that produces the results that researcher expected to get all along. It's particularly bad with softer sciences like sociology, but it exists everywhere.

Furthermore, when those results agree with other contemporary research, no matter how flawed the journey itself was in getting those results, they tend to not be scrutinized as closely. It can become a vicious cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy.

[SoCalCoug]

Tell you what, Indy. You're obviously the most gifted statistician and expert on predictive climate models around. Since none of the rest of us can really hope to respond to you, since your intelligence level is so much higher than ours, why don't you enlighten us by giving a detailed criticism of the methods and conclusions of one of the more comprehensive scientific reports on global climate change:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

With your education and experience, I'm sure you can enlighten the rest of us.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Tell you what, Indy. You're obviously the most gifted statistician and expert on predictive climate models around. Since none of the rest of us can really hope to respond to you, since your intelligence level is so much higher than ours, why don't you enlighten us by giving a detailed criticism of the methods and conclusions of one of the more comprehensive scientific reports on global climate change:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

With your education and experience, I'm sure you can enlighten the rest of us.

Here's a start

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm

Solar forcing
The variation of solar irradiance with the 11-year sunspot cycle has been assessed with some accuracy over more than 20 years, although measurements of the magnitude of modulations of solar irradiance between solar cycles are less certain (see Chapter 6). The estimation of earlier solar irradiance fluctuations, although based on physical mechanisms, is indirect. Hence our confidence in the range of solar radiation on century time-scales is low, and confidence in the details of the time-history is even lower (Harrison and Shine, 1999; Chapter 6). Several recent reconstructions estimate that variations in solar irradiance give rise to a forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 0.6 to 0.7 Wm-2 since the Maunder Minimum and about half this over the 20th century (see Chapter 6, Figure 6.5; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995; Lean, 1997; Froehlich and Lean, 1998; Lockwood and Stamper, 1999). This is larger than the 0.2 Wm-2 modulation of the 11-year solar cycle measured from satellites. (Note that we discuss here the forcing at the Earth’s surface, which is smaller than that at the top of the atmosphere, due to the Earth’s geometry and albedo.) The reconstructions of Lean et al. (1995) and Hoyt and Schatten (1993), which have been used in GCM detection studies, vary in amplitude and phase. Chapter 6, Figure 6.8 shows time-series of reconstructed solar and volcanic forcing since the late 18th century. All reconstructions indicate that the direct effect of variations in solar forcing over the 20th century was about 20 to 25% of the change in forcing due to increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases (see Chapter 6).

Only 20 years of data to measure and model solar irradiation. How many solar cycles have been observed to determine the effect on global climate as it waxes and wanes; especially since it isn't a given that variability in solar output is known or understood, let alone measured?

Don't you think solar irradiation might be an important thing to measure and to understand? There's only so much heat that can come from cow flatulence.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Tell you what, Indy. You're obviously the most gifted statistician and expert on predictive climate models around. Since none of the rest of us can really hope to respond to you, since your intelligence level is so much higher than ours, why don't you enlighten us by giving a detailed criticism of the methods and conclusions of one of the more comprehensive scientific reports on global climate change:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

With your education and experience, I'm sure you can enlighten the rest of us.

Not speaking for Indy, but my question or observation is how can we find out what is reliable in what seems to be a virgin scientific endeavor.

And although critics may not be sounding off correctly or accurately, there is some truth to the observation Indy makes about a community accepting finding what it finds. It probably doesn't explain away their findings, but there are margins of error and the philosophies of science do discuss bias of the community.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't understand all of this, not even close, but could you answer the applicability of these concepts to climactic change?



I thought CFD applied to airplanes, air foils and space shuttles.

Navier-Stokes starts that system of analysis where one eliminates different factors to have even simpler equations. That's about all I remember, but then again I could be wrong.

They are used extensively in circulation models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations

The Navier–Stokes equations, named after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel Stokes, describe the motion of viscous fluid substances such as liquids and gases. These equations arise from the assumption that the stress is the sum of a dissipative viscous term (proportional to the gradient of velocity), plus a pressure term. In some elementary treatments these equations are erroneously presented as an application of Newton's second law to fluid. Actually, Navier–Stokes equations rely on the notion of stress and not on that of force, that is, they rely on about 200 years of Physics achievements.

They are one of the most useful sets of equations because they describe the physics of a large number of phenomena of academic and economic interest. They may be used to model weather, ocean currents, water flow in a pipe, flow around an airfoil (wing), and motion of stars inside a galaxy. As such, these equations in both full and simplified forms, are used in the design of aircraft and cars, the study of blood flow, the design of power stations, the analysis of the effects of pollution, etc. Coupled with Maxwell's equations they can be used to model and study magnetohydrodynamics.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

I'm not a climatologist, but I think I have a pretty good idea about how science works. We have a great competitive system in our country. The best, most rigorous scientists are devoted to the truth, and these scientists end up being successful. Bad scientists have short careers.

Exactly.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

They are used extensively in circulation models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations

Thanks. I'm sorry to be such a simpleton, but my low grade BYU education didn't prepare me for such rigorous scientific discussions. Maybe I should bow out and let you experts discuss the science. I only remember them applying air foils.

SoCal's contribution, which may or may not be worthwhile as I am not in the know, states in is Executive Summary conclusion:

Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for additional systematic observations, modelling and process studies. A serious concern is the decline of observational networks. Further work is needed in eight broad areas:

• Reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world. Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe.
• Sustain and expand the observational foundation for climate studies by providing accurate, long-term, consistent data including implementation of a strategy for integrated global observations. Given the complexity of the climate system and the inherent multi-decadal time-scale, there is a need for long-term consistent data to support climate and environmental change investigations and projections. Data from the present and recent past, climate-relevant data for the last few centuries, and for the last several millennia are all needed. There is a particular shortage of data in polar regions and data for the quantitative assessment of extremes on the global scale.
• Understand better the mechanisms and factors leading to changes in radiative forcing; in particular, improve the observations of the spatial distribution of greenhouse gases and aerosols. It is particularly important that improvements are realised in deriving concentrations from emissions of gases and particularly aerosols, and in addressing biogeochemical sequestration and cycling, and specifically, in determining the spatial-temporal distribution of carbon dioxide (CO2) sources and sinks, currently and in the future. Observations are needed that would decisively improve our ability to model the carbon cycle; in addition, a dense and well-calibrated network of stations for monitoring CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentrations will also be required for international verification of carbon sinks. Improvements in deriving concentrations from emissions of gases and in the prediction and assessment of direct and indirect aerosol forcing will require an integrated effort involving in situ observations, satellite remote sensing, field campaigns and modelling.
• Understand and characterise the important unresolved processes and feedbacks, both physical and biogeochemical, in the climate system. Increased understanding is needed to improve prognostic capabilities generally. The interplay of observation and models will be the key for progress. The rapid forcing of a non-linear system has a high prospect of producing surprises.
• Address more completely patterns of long-term climate variability including the occurrence of extreme events. This topic arises both in model calculations and in the climate system. In simulations, the issue of climate drift within model calculations needs to be clarified better in part because it compounds the difficulty of distinguishing signal and noise. With respect to the long-term natural variability in the climate system per se, it is important to understand this variability and to expand the emerging capability of predicting patterns of organised variability such as El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This predictive capability is both a valuable test of model performance and a useful contribution in natural resource and economic management.
• Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.
• Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with a focus on the simulation of climate variability, regional climate changes, and extreme events. There is the potential for increased understanding of extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges in realising this potential. It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modelling and observational studies that evaluate and improve simulation performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of changes in extreme events.
• Link models of the physical climate and the biogeochemical system more effectively, and in turn improve coupling with descriptions of human activities. At present, human influences generally are treated only through emission scenarios that provide external forcings to the climate system. In future more comprehensive models, human activities need to begin to interact with the dynamics of physical, chemical, and biological sub-systems through a diverse set of contributing activities, feedbacks, and responses.

Cutting across these foci are crucial needs associated with strengthening international co-operation and co-ordination in order to utilise better scientific, computational, and observational resources. This should also promote the free exchange of data among scientists. A special need is to increase the observational and research capacities in many regions, particularly in developing countries. Finally, as is the goal of this assessment, there is a continuing imperative to communicate research advances in terms that are relevant to decision making.

The challenges to understanding the Earth system, including the human component, are daunting, but these challenges simply must be met.

[Mars]

Originally Posted by MudphudCoug

I'm not a climatologist, but I think I have a pretty good idea about how science works. We have a great competitive system in our country. The best, most rigorous scientists are devoted to the truth, and these scientists end up being successful. Bad scientists have short careers. I have no reason to believe that climatology in America is less rigorous than other sciences. Since I'm not a climatologist, I choose to trust the experts.

That's the whole problem with this- The system is backwards. Those who support the global warming propaganda PAY their scientists to do studies supporting their religion. And if the study's results don't match the desired proof, those scientists aren't re-hired to do more. The whole thing is corrupt and biased, which makes the truth hard to find (like with Lebowski here).

[creekster]

I am no scientist, but I think the argument is more one of policy, like this:

"Global warming looks like it is happening, and there is observational and analytical support for its occurrence. While it is true that the science may be wrong or may be overstating the risk, the risk is so huge, so far-reaching and so catastrophic, that our policy MUST bow to the risk until we know for sure. If we figure out later it is not a risk associated with man's activities, we can always go back and burn oil to our heart's content."

This is why the proponents of these policy changes dwell on the possible cataclysms. They are talking about shifting risk.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I am no scientist, but I think the argument is more one of policy, like this:

"Global warming looks like it is happening, and there is observational and analytical support for its occurrence. While it is true that the science may be wrong or may be overstating the risk, the risk is so huge, so far-reaching and so catastrophic, that our policy MUST bow to the risk until we know for sure. If we figure out later it is not a risk associated with man's activities, we can always go back and burn oil to our heart's content."

This is why the proponents of these policy changes dwell on the possible cataclysms. They are talking about shifting risk.

Then the tricky question becomes:

In the absence of understanding how much global warming is anthropogenic and in the absence of understanding what, if anything, we can do to combat it, how much effort and money should we expend as a result?

Do we expend trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades, when that money could be used to cure cancer, feed the poor or overthrow the BCS?