News Article: Interesting article on global warming causes and effecte

[CrimsonCT]

Forgive me if I don't simply accept your world regarding TSWJ. It is at least a peer-reviewed article, as opposed to your post on a football message board.

And you think that short-term weather models and long-term climate models are analogous? Very interesting...

As I said, a fruitless waste of time.

 

[RedStar]

Forgive me if I don't simply accept your world regarding TSWJ. It is at least a peer-reviewed article, as opposed to your post on a football message board.

And you think that short-term weather models and long-term climate models are analogous? Very interesting...

As I said, a fruitless waste of time.

At least your proving to everyone else your stubbornness and not just me, why is it so hard for you to simply answer my questions?

 

[Bamaro]

To the pro-global warming crowd:

Why no answers to my questions? You keep wanting to argue facts, but you seem to ignore the ones I've presented. Why not try and answer the questions I've asked?

Try reading peer reviewed scientific articles for your answers.

 

[CrimsonCT]

At least your proving to everyone else your stubbornness and not just me, why is it so hard for you to simply answer my questions?

I'm pretty sure we're both being equally stubborn here, as you've been (very poorly) deflecting the data I posted to avoid addressing it.

 

[RedStar]

Try reading peer reviewed scientific articles for your answers.

I know their answers, and I've already addressed them. I want yours. Why is that so hard?

 

[RedStar]

I'm pretty sure we're both being equally stubborn here, as you've been (very poorly) deflecting the data I posted to avoid addressing it.

I have addressed them, what else do you want me to answer, throw it at me. You haven't answered anything.

 

[CrimsonCT]

I have addressed them

A shot from the hip and a failed analogy? lol.

There are certain people with whom a dialog is a waste of time. One red flag is when you begin your argument by setting yourself on an intellectual pedestal and making the claim that any who disagree are your inferiors and just mentally unequipped to understand why you are correct. I am done repeating this. Perhaps you'll approach this differently next time, TUNA.

 

[Bamaro]

I know their answers, and I've already addressed them. I want yours. Why is that so hard?

Oh, I get it. Dismiss the vast preponderance of scientists and researchers and debate it with someone on the internet.

 

[rolltidescott]

Aren't "computer models" used to predict the weather? These forecasts are not accurate 14 days out...

 

[RedStar]

A shot from the hip and a failed analogy? lol.

There are certain people with whom a dialog is a waste of time. One red flag is when you begin your argument by setting yourself on an intellectual pedestal and making the claim that any who disagree are your inferiors and just mentally unequipped to understand why you are correct. I am done repeating this. Perhaps you'll approach this differently next time, TUNA.

Way to show your true colors. I've given you every opportunity to answer and you've thrown it back in my face every single time. There's nothing more that I can do, you are the one unwilling to cooperate.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Aren't "computer models" used to predict the weather? These forecasts are not accurate 14 days out...

Stop with obvious facts unless you have a peer reviewed article to link... :biggrin:

 

[RedStar]

Oh, I get it. Dismiss the vast preponderance of scientists and researchers and debate it with someone on the internet.

Vast preponderance eh? You really haven't done your homework have you? Just because one group is more vocal than another doesn't mean they are the majority.

Again, refusal to answer any questions at all. . .

 

[CrimsonCT]

Aren't "computer models" used to predict the weather? These forecasts are not accurate 14 days out...

Ask this question of a atmospheric science professor at Texas A&M.

 

[RedStar]

Ask this question of a atmospheric science professor at Texas A&M.

I'm not asking him, I'm asking you. Unlike you, I've actually given you evidence that I have collected, sunspots, hurricanes, etc. . . You've given me nothing.

As far as computers go. . .

Predictions of global climate change are based on general circulation models (GCMs), complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. GCMs help scientists learn more about atmospheric physics, but they cannot predict future climates.

GCMs use "fudge factors" that are larger than the variables they are supposed to be measuring. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers' expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations. GCMs are only as good as the data fed into them. The GCMs are programmed to assume an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations of 1 percent per year, even though the historical data show an annual increase of only 0.3 to 0.4 percent. Population growth and coal production figures were similarly exaggerated, which is exactly what I learned in every class I took.

http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2002/27mar2002.html

Or here's another site,

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm

All of these further expounds upon what I've already said. I've yet to hear you give ANY answers to questions I've asked you.

 

[gmart74]

Interesting thoughts from the TAMU prof but I especially like what the first reply to his article stated-

However, I am still very skeptical of the accuracy of climate modelling, not because of anything to do with the weather a week from now, but because it would appear there are so many inputs and variables to be considered, with a lot of assumptions on the values for these in the future. Changing these assumptions changes the output of the models. More importantly, there are still many unknowns that affect climate that can't be modelled because they are unknown.

Small perturbations in initial measurements or in the models for feedback loops will yield an amazingly inaccurate forecast 100's of years from now.

Additionally I have an issue with the prof comparing long term climate predictions to throwing 6 sided dice. The statistics are completely known for any 6 sided die. However we don't know all the variables, or the proper mathematical weight to attribute to those inputs when talking about the dynamics of global temperature- therefore the proper analogy would be we have a die that could have between 4 and 20 sides and each side may or may not be the same size. Additionally we think we measured some of the sides a while back and we aren't sure if those measurements are very precise. so we are still going to try and predict which is the most likely outcome after rolling it 1000 times.

 

[CrimsonCT]

Small perturbations in initial measurements or in the models for feedback loops will yield an amazingly inaccurate forecast 100's of years from now.

Additionally I have an issue with the prof comparing long term climate predictions to throwing 6 sided dice. The statistics are completely known for any 6 sided die. However we don't know all the variables, or the proper mathematical weight to attribute to those inputs when talking about the dynamics of global temperature- therefore the proper analogy would be we have a die that could have between 4 and 20 sides and each side may or may not be the same size. Additionally we think we measured some of the sides a while back and we aren't sure if those measurements are very precise. so we are still going to try and predict which is the most likely outcome after rolling it 1000 times.

In our measurements, presuming a standard error distribution around the actual values we measure, the small inaccuracies would be unlikely to affect the models in a large enough sample. They will cluster and the uncertainties will cancel each other.

Your second point is an important one, and you're absolutely correct. His analogy works best on the level of dispelling the comparison between weather and climate modeling, in that weather modeling is subject to random uncertainties that we cannot control, where a tiny fluctuation can completely ruin a forecast. But climate modeling is immune to these Brownian imbalances. It obviously has other issues, which is why the algorithms are constantly being re-evaluated. But the underlying idea is that there is a discrete number of variables (like the sides of a die) that can eventually be solved and present a clear statistical picture of past and future climate shifts.

 

[CrimsonCT]

I'm not asking him, I'm asking you. Unlike you, I've actually given you evidence that I have collected, sunspots, hurricanes, etc. . . You've given me nothing.

As far as computers go. . .

Predictions of global climate change are based on general circulation models (GCMs), complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. GCMs help scientists learn more about atmospheric physics, but they cannot predict future climates.

GCMs use "fudge factors" that are larger than the variables they are supposed to be measuring. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers' expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations. GCMs are only as good as the data fed into them. The GCMs are programmed to assume an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations of 1 percent per year, even though the historical data show an annual increase of only 0.3 to 0.4 percent. Population growth and coal production figures were similarly exaggerated, which is exactly what I learned in every class I took.

http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2002/27mar2002.html

Or here's another site,

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm

All of these further expounds upon what I've already said. I've yet to hear you give ANY answers to questions I've asked you.

Of course you'd rather debate me than an expert in the field--surely that would be much simpler. I applaud your honesty.

Anyway, your articles are out of date. The AIM article resurrects the Oregon Institute Petition, which is laughable and immediately identifies its agenda. The lack of measured warming since 1998 was answered by Dr. Dessler. It doesn't even reference the latest IPCC report, and even then could only find two weakly dissenting opinions. An overall underwhelming piece.

Additionally, most AOGCMs no longer use flux correction, and numerous models no longer use the idealized d[1%]/year CO2 increase. A quick trip to [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model]Wikipedia[/ame], even, would have identfied these fallacies in your post.

 

[NYBamaFan]

Ahhh, but what do we know about what we don't know? What unasked questions remain unanswered? And why are those questions not being asked?

We don't even know what we think that we know. Hubris...

 

[RedStar]

Of course you'd rather debate me than an expert in the field--surely that would be much simpler. I applaud your honesty.

Anyway, your articles are out of date. The AIM article resurrects the Oregon Institute Petition, which is laughable and immediately identifies its agenda. The lack of measured warming since 1998 was answered by Dr. Dessler. It doesn't even reference the latest IPCC report, and even then could only find two weakly dissenting opinions. An overall underwhelming piece.

Additionally, most AOGCMs no longer use flux correction, and numerous models no longer use the idealized d[1%]/year CO2 increase. A quick trip to Wikipedia, even, would have identfied these fallacies in your post.

So you try to challenge my data which you call out of date. (Which doesn't make sense because all data comes from the past) But yet you use Wikipedia for your source? C'mon, who are you kidding?

How can General Circulation Models be expected to accurately predict climate 20-40 years in the future, when we do not have a solid understanding of the climatological cycles that drive weather events?

There are so many things that have been proven to cause different warming trends throughout history, so why blame it on humans? There are even theories that suggest changes in orbital characteristics produce significant shifts in climate have been well established for decades. See below:

Do not assume an imagined "crisis" as an excuse to suspend individual liberty or the operations of politics, the market and culture. Scientific "consensus" once held that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the disk of the earth. You can't mix moral judgments with scientific fact.

A warming climate is not something that is limited to Earth. Warming on the surface of Mars is causing that planet's ice caps to shrink, yet there is no life that inhabits that planet, so why is this happening? Click Here.


There is evidence of significant shifts in global climate even before industrialization, and it's always cyclical, so how can you blame it on human actions?

Here is an data retrieved from the Vostok, Antarctica Ice Core as reported by Petit in 1999.

The Blue Line is Temperature
The Green Line is CO2 levels
The Red Line is Dust Concentration

This is data over a 400,000 year period. You can see just how cyclical all of this is, so how can you blame it on the actions of the human race? It was here long before the last 50 years. Again I provide data, and again all you do is link to some article that you don't even understand. You link to something that backs up your claim of global warming, yet you know nothing about the forces that drive our climate. It makes no sense. I know I came off as being on a pedestal in my original post in this thread, but I have my reasons. The fact that your knowledge of Climatology is limited is the very reason I came off so vehemently in my original post. It's people like you that drive me crazy. You don't to accept facts, and you don't provide any of your own. It's impossible.

 

[RhodeIslandRed]

Ahhh, but what do we know about what we don't know? What unasked questions remain unanswered? And why are those questions not being asked?

We don't even know what we think that we know. Hubris...

Regardless of the scientific evidence (all of it very interesting), the idea of global warming has certainly entered the political realm. With Obama bringing in a scientist for Energy secretary, there will be a shift away from fossil fuels, for better or worse. Interestingly, the pair apparently have no love for nuclear energy, which is important. Given the amount of fossil fuels is spent on transportation, there is currently no other energy alternative. As a result, any energy alternative will be more expensive than fossil fuels and the cost will be borne by the consumer. Moreover, fossil fuels may come with a much discussed 'carbon tax' bound to make fossil fuels more attractive. More of peoples' incomes will be devoted to cost of living expense, making debt servicing more expensive.

WASHINGTON – Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who is President-elect Barack Obama's choice for energy secretary, has been a vocal advocate for more research into alternative energy, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combat global warming.

...Despite his broad scientific credentials, Chu has little experience inside Washington or in what occupies much of the Energy Department's business — maintaining the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons and weapons research. Nor has he had much involvement in nuclear energy. He has shown little support for building a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, one of the major issues facing the department. Obama also has expressed dislike for the Yucca project.

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/chu_profile;_ylt=AgVVGNhQV5AEP4OiO2LkkyUS.MwF[/URL]

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."