Right Wing University says Global Warming a Natural Cycle

[Maggie]

Maggie: I am confused by your last post. Are you saying that a scientific theory should not be modified in light of subsequent observations or evidence?

I dread confusion – even more when I, apparently am the guilty party -- but I suspect you are not confused. I’ll give an uncharacteristic short answer to your question: No. Which is part of my point.

Do you believe, in so far as general public “pronouncements” are concerned, that equal time is given to the proponents as well as the critics? And do you believe the proponents are publicly made to justify their arguments/theories, etc?

I am not questioning the conclusion (at this time), for all I know it may be correct. But I can recognize a weak, or a least an argument made by a person(s) that doesn’t relish defending it – for whatever reason – and that is what I see here – at least in the MSM.

[SpanglerFan316]

Maggie: I am confused by your last post. Are you saying that a scientific theory should not be modified in light of subsequent observations or evidence?

I dread confusion – even more when I, apparently am the guilty party -- but I suspect you are not confused. I’ll give an uncharacteristic short answer to your question: No. Which is part of my point.

Do you believe, in so far as general public “pronouncements” are concerned, that equal time is given to the proponents as well as the critics? And do you believe the proponents are publicly made to justify their arguments/theories, etc?

I am not questioning the conclusion (at this time), for all I know it may be correct. But I can recognize a weak, or a least an argument made by a person(s) that doesn’t relish defending it – for whatever reason – and that is what I see here – at least in the MSM.

I don't have the slightest idea. I don't follow public debates about scientific conclusions.

Public debates about science are worthless in my opinion. Public debates which accept the consesus of scientific opinion and use this to form public policy are very worthwhile. What do journalists and lay people know about biochemistry, geology, mathematics, physics, statistics, medical studies, etc.? Trying to determine the validity of science in a lay, public forum is completely silly.

[SB Shock]

The overall "heat budget" of the earth is a different matter than the "weather."

No it is not. How do you think the heat budget is managed? It is from "Weather". If you can't predict the "Weather" you can't predict the "heat budget". There is a study out there done by Colorado State that evaluates the accuracy of the IPCC climate models to assess regional weather patterns and their conclusions were:

“The dynamic accuracy of GCM models have not been adequately tested. Such models need to be used to predict short-term weather changes since skill at such scales is essential if the models are to demonstrate a numerical fidelity in simulating wave-wave- interactions. If the GCMs have insufficient spatial resolution or physics to forecast weather as accurately as current operational weather numerical prediction models, what confidence should be placed on their skill at predicting long-term climate change? Long-term climate is made up of [an accumulation] of day-to-day weather.”

There is no global warming model which attempts to predict "long term weather patterns."

Wrong again. All weather models are climate models. There are numerous global warming models that try and predict how the weather will evolve over years/decades You can find results from those models in Europe (IPCC) and USA (NASA).

NASA has developed long range climate models that they even using to fear monger that "global warming will create more severe storms". Of course this model is does not have a mesh density that is able to evaluate mesocale type features - but it is good enough to make educated guesses ....wink wink.

These global models when used to model previous global behavior have failed to predict global cooling patterns that have occured. Cool - A climate model that is good for one thing - predicting global warming.

At times, simulations based on models are run; these are not "predictions" but rather "what sorts of weather (or weather patterns) might occur" if the model was approximately accurate.

These simulation are not "predictions"? Of course they are. That what simulations do - predict based on the man-made equations that were written.

Some problems (e.g. weather prediction) are highly unstable. Even a "perfect model" will be unable to predit the weather for a long period of time (e.g. a month or two.)

Weather models are able to be developed because the phenomenon is exactly the opposite - this is a fluid dynamics problem - complex, but behave under the law of physics. The real problem with the models is computer power. To actually get a model to run in decent time they have to decrease the fidelity of the model. I does no good to try and simulate a day of weather when the model takes a week to run.

A secondary problem is they don't have enough measurements of the surface and upper atmosphere for setting the initial conditions. When you take this to a global climate model this gets even more pronounced.

3rd problem is our own understanding of all the parameters and their interaction.

I like Dr. Gray comment that Al Gore's theory was "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmophere works".

2. I don't recall saying "global warming is bad" (or good).

I wasn't saying you did. I was just trying to understand why the "status quo" is so wonderfull when it seems that "global warming" might actually open up large expanses of the world to settlement and natural resources that in areas that are to extreme to live right now or explore in a cost effective manner.

[SpanglerFan316]

SB Shock: You're probably a great person but your comments are BS.

The thermal energy is fundamental. The "weather" is the (fairly) random effect of this thermal energy. If you don't understand and accept this, there is no point in having a discussion.

The Colorado State study you quoted discussed climate change (e.g. "what confidence should be placed on their skill at predicting long-term climate change?") but climate change is a secondary effect of "the heat budget" and has no direct effect on the global heat budget.

I could discuss several different ways that "weather" transports heat around the globe but the only important and fundamental question is "How much heat escapes into space (outflow) and how much heat enters from space (inflow)?"

Weather, climate change, ocean currents, etc. can affect the amount of ice on the planet and hence the reflectivity of the earth. They can affect the cloud cover; depending on the type and quantity of clouds, the reflectivity of the atmosphere can increase or decrease. The area of desert on the earth can also affect the reflectivity. The types and amounts of greenhouse gasses, cloud cover, etc. can effect the radiation of heat into space.

The total thermal energy (heat budget) of the surface, oceans and atmosphere of the earth is fundamental and is the driving force. This is primary.

"Climate change" represents the large scale, long term effects of the thermal energy. This is secondary.

"Weather" represents the local, short term effects of the climate. This is tertiary.

I agree with criticisms of climate prediction. I wonder if this problem is too complex and unstable to ever calculate. Predicting weather is even harder. The CSU study is probably correct to criticize climate change models. Who knows what will be the climate in Kansas in 100 years?

On the other hand, the "heat budget" is much easier. The change in thermal energy is heat in minus heat out. Do the climate, the weather and human activity affect the heat in? Yes by affecting the reflectivity of the atmosphere and the surface. Do they affect the heat out? Yes (e.g. greenhouse gasses).

If you believe one theory, ice ages are not largely caused by increasing the reflectivity of the earth (increased ice cover) but by periodic variations in the output of the sun (i.e. soluions of the wave equation inside the sun are computed to have periods of about 17,000 years and between 100,000 & 200,000 years). These variations are not random but a consequence of properties of hyperbolic partial differential equations. If this theory is correct, then the climate (& reflectivity of the earth) plays only a minor role in the cycle of ice ages.

The "standard model" for ice ages says the tilt of the earth leads to a feedback loop where there is increased ice cover (i.e. glaciers) which effectively reduces solar radiation (i.e. sunlight bounces off the glaciers into space) which increases the glaciers, etc. Calculations from this model show that this "feedback loop" is far too weak to cause ice ages. Most "weather researchers" still use this model, however.

So it is possible that "climate change" has little impact on the heat in part of the thermal budget, which is controlled by the minor variations in the output of light by the sun but that the heat out part of the thermal balance can be strongly affected by humans (since increases in greenhouse gasses act like a blanket and could possibly prevent another ice age by keeping in more of solar energy which we receive from the sun.)

[SB Shock]

SB Shock: You're probably a great person but your comments are BS.

Of course I am a great person - I follow the Shockers.

Well if there was ever somebody who would know BS, it would be you with your the BS you spewed. You have written a couple page thesis that can be boiled down to:

1. Climate is like a engine, but weather is different - even though Climate by definition is weather?

2. Climate is a thermodynamic process - [b][i]Another statment of the obvious that most scientist/engineer/meteoroligist understand. BTW I had Gossman and got a A.

3. Climate is complex - statement of the obvious

4. There is no global warming models - obviously false.

5. Simulation are not "predictions" - wrong again

6. Weather predictions are highly unstable - maybe if your watching Dave Freeman make a forecast. Please explain this instability.

7. "Even a "perfect model" will be unable to predict the weather for a long period of time" - obviously if the perfect model is not able to predict then it is not perfect.

8. The "weather" is the (fairly) random effect of this thermal energy -

Weather is "fairly random is laughable. There is no so thing as "fairly random". The T-Storms tonight did not occur tonight as a random process. If it was random then the various climate models would not have predicted them. Me think you don't really understand what random really means.

9. You then listed the various theories of what may be affecting the weather/climate changes. You did forget a couple other theories:

a) ocean salinity and

b) theory that the earth rotation has periodic perturbations in it that cause global warming/cooling periods.

c) Volcanic activity

d) Sunspot activity

10. The CO2 levels observed today, to the best of my knowledge (& I'm not involved in climate research), is substantially higher than any levels in the scientific record (e.g. ice cores).

Obviously if you review the literature you will find that the earth had significant more Co2, higher oxygen levels and higher temperatures. That is why the North Pole was a tropical paradise at one time

I agree with criticisms of climate prediction. I wonder if this problem is too complex and unstable to ever calculate.

You keep saying unstable? You said it in your previous post and once again. What is this supposed instability?

The CSU study is probably correct to criticize climate change models.

Of course they are. You have to validate your models - any scientist or engineer know that you need peer reviews. But that is not what is happening with the global climate models. If the model gives them the answer they wanted, then they publish the paper. When third parties take those same models and applies them to historical time frames the model don't do to well.

Who knows what will be the climate in Kansas in 100 years?

Definitely not Al Gore, regardless of what he tells you. But I am pretty much sure that God knows.

[SpanglerFan316]

Why don't you have a debate by yourself; you seem driven by (political) dogma rather than by science.

[Maggie]

Maggie: I am confused by your last post. Are you saying that a scientific theory should not be modified in light of subsequent observations or evidence?

I dread confusion – even more when I, apparently am the guilty party -- but I suspect you are not confused. I’ll give an uncharacteristic short answer to your question: No. Which is part of my point.

Do you believe, in so far as general public “pronouncements” are concerned, that equal time is given to the proponents as well as the critics? And do you believe the proponents are publicly made to justify their arguments/theories, etc?

I am not questioning the conclusion (at this time), for all I know it may be correct. But I can recognize a weak, or a least an argument made by a person(s) that doesn’t relish defending it – for whatever reason – and that is what I see here – at least in the MSM.

I don't have the slightest idea. I don't follow public debates about scientific conclusions.

Public debates about science are worthless in my opinion. Public debates which accept the consesus of scientific opinion and use this to form public policy are very worthwhile. What do journalists and lay people know about biochemistry, geology, mathematics, physics, statistics, medical studies, etc.? Trying to determine the validity of science in a lay, public forum is completely silly.

What I am writing about is not a journalist or “opinion maker” on TV or in print weighing in on this subject; but rather the public proclamations of scientists that are proponents of global warming – and debates between the various sides when that is actually permitted. This is an attempt to drive public policy.

The same dogmatism you see in others is clearly on display during these public discussions or debates. In other words, “debate”, peer review, criticism, appears to be the last thing supporters of global warming theory are interested in. Generally, what I have witnessed when an actual scientist questions global warming theory the immediate public reaction from the other side is a slew of non sequitur and ad hominem attacks. People, especially scientists, should not do this and when they do do this I think it legitimately raises questions about: (1) The strength and foundation of the theory they support and (2) the motivation of the individual defending the theory. People don’t resort to this type of rhetorical defense unless their argument is weak or they are in fact losing an argument.

I don’t read every scientific journal, etc. on the subject. Again, I am not discussing whether or not global cooling/global warming/climate change is being significantly affected in a negative way by mans own actions – personally, I think at this point reasonable people can differ. But, as I said before, I can recognize the signs of a weak argument when I see one and this coupled with the rhetorical excesses, that are indeed at times hysterical (by some accounts my home should be underwater by now and you should have beach front property in Wichita :good: ), of the proponents, and I don’t just mean politicians but scientists too, of these theories does a great disservice to their cause.

What I have witnessed during my life time is a religious devotion to global cooling/global warming/climate change (in that order) which in turn has given rise to a nasty visceral reaction to peer review and criticism. Maybe there are scientists out there that take this seriously but they certainly are not in the public sphere.

[rZ]

Another theory that I have not seen mentioned is that of the effects of particulate matter in the atmosphere. The combustion of carbon based fuels releases more than pure CO2 gas. It also releases small particles of matter. This matter, when in the atmosphere, can act as a mirror, reflecting sunlight back into space. This is at least one of the theories as to why CO2 levels continue to rise, yet temperatures are predicted to fall.

[SpanglerFan316]

Another theory that I have not seen mentioned is that of the effects of particulate matter in the atmosphere. The combustion of carbon based fuels releases more than pure CO2 gas. It also releases small particles of matter. This matter, when in the atmosphere, can act as a mirror, reflecting sunlight back into space. This is at least one of the theories as to why CO2 levels continue to rise, yet temperatures are predicted to fall.

Maggie & rZ: I care about the science, not the public perceptions. Trying to judge the validity of the science based on "public debate" or "the public proclamations of scientists" is intellectually dishonest.

It is certainly true that new theories in physics, geology, chemistry, etc. are not automatically accepted by the scientific community, even if they trun out to be correct. There is a saying that "In order for a new theory to be accepted, the old generation of scientists (in that specific subfield) has to die": this saying is a "joke" but one with a point. You can find examples of well known scientists who held onto and promoted their theories until they died even though the rest of the scientific community had moved on.
An Example: Steady state physics vs. the big bang theory.
(Almost everyone accepted the steady state theory until evidence in the 1960s showed it was wrong; the main steady state proponent claimed he was right until his death in 2000 or 2001.)

Lots of details like cloud cover, greenhouse gasses, particulate matter, ocean currents, etc. influence the total thermal energy of the "earth" (by which I mean the surface + oceans + atmosphere). Volcanos have an impact too. So do fission and fusion explosions. Lots of things have an impact. These are little details and the detailed picture is complicated.

The "little details" have an effect by moving energy around. Sometimes they move it "horizontally" (e.g. ocean currents move heat toward the poles, "weather" moves it from Texas to Kansas, etc.) and sometimes they move it "vertically" (e.g. particulate matter, clouds, glaciers, etc. reflecting energy into space, greenhouse gasses preventing infrared radiation (heat) from escaping into space). Volcanos introduce a tiny amount of heat energy (in comparison to the total amount of thermal energy present) and they inject CO2, particulate matter, etc. into the atmosphere.

The big picture is that the "engine" which drives weather is thermal energy. The total amount of energy escaping into space can be well estimated using satellite measurements. The total amount of solar energy hitting the earth and being reflected from earth can be well estimated in the same way. The components which affect the "vertical" movement of heat (e.g. greenhouse gasses, dust) can be studied.

SB Shock asked:
6. Weather predictions are highly unstable - maybe if your watching Dave Freeman make a forecast. Please explain this instability.

Somebody who doesn't understand "stability" has no business discussing this entire topic. Such people would have to study for several years just to realize how wrong they are. I'm not even sure where to start.

"Stability" has several meanings but they all have a common theme.

1. In numerical analysis & scientific computing (e.g. CFD, weather prediction), various errors can build up and are often described as "roundoff error" and "discretization error." If a mathematical problem (since all physics reduces to problems in mathematics) is "unstable" (e.g. has a large condition number), the effects of these numerical errors build up extremely rapidly. You can reduce "discretization error" by making the grid finer but you pay for this by doing more computations and each computation adds "roundoff error." Weather prediction is essentially CFD (computational fluid dynamics) and CFD is highly unstable in the sense that any small numerical errors (which always occur because computers can only approximate real numbers (e.g. "machine epsilon")) build up and quickly give answers which are completely wrong. In order to predict weather a week in advance, extremely precise, fast and large (e.g. memory, cpus, storage) computer clusters are required. Other than broad "climate" predictions, nobody makes good "weather" predictions a month in advance. (I am ignoring other numerical issues which cause additional error.)

2. Around 1889, Henri Poincare discovered that in the three body problem, chaotic orbits can occur. This is the first example (as far as I recall) where instability was recognized in mathematics and astronomy. Another example is turbulence in fluid flows. These are critical issues. People might laugh at the so-called "butterfly effect" with regard to weather. I have no idea if a butterfly in Japan ever caused a storm in Kansas. This is a metaphor for the severe instability which can occur in fluid dynamics; it's "dummied down" to illustrate to the lay public the idea of instability. Obviously SB Shock never understood the metaphor.

[Maggie]

Spangler,

You write:

I care about the science, not the public perceptions. Trying to judge the validity of the science based on "public debate" or "the public proclamations of scientists" is intellectually dishonest.

I am fine with your first sentence. However, while you care about the science (and, ultimately, so do I), the advocates, in my judgment, of global warming appear to care more about public perception/opinion.

Also, I don’t see how you can state it is intellectually dishonest to view an argument with a skeptical eye (even if you know absolutely nothing about the underlying subject) if the proponents of that argument consistently resort to logical fallacies and rhetorical excess in an attempt to justify his or her position (which, incidentally, you have not been guilty of doing).

It is the proponent of that argument who is being intellectually dishonest not the person sitting in his or her living room.

[ShockCity]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18tue1.html

[SpanglerFan316]

Spangler,

You write:

I care about the science, not the public perceptions. Trying to judge the validity of the science based on "public debate" or "the public proclamations of scientists" is intellectually dishonest.

I am fine with your first sentence. However, while you care about the science (and, ultimately, so do I), the advocates, in my judgment, of global warming appear to care more about public perception/opinion.

Also, I don’t see how you can state it is intellectually dishonest to view an argument with a skeptical eye (even if you know absolutely nothing about the underlying subject) if the proponents of that argument consistently resort to logical fallacies and rhetorical excess in an attempt to justify his or her position (which, incidentally, you have not been guilty of doing).

It is the proponent of that argument who is being intellectually dishonest not the person sitting in his or her living room.

If you form a judgment about the validity of the science without looking at the science itself, you are being intellectually dishonest.

If you say "These scientists don't seem to be acting appropriately and I'm not certain they are correct," then you are not being dishonest.

For you to be skeptical is fine. For you to claim that the science is wrong without looking at the science itself is dishonest.

[SpanglerFan316]

The title of this entire thread is "Right Wing University says Global Warming a Natural Cycle."

We have established that the "Right Wing University" is MIT and I have shown that the MIT article in question does not mention "a Natural Cycle" and does not say "Global Warming a Natural Cycle."

I presume that "conservatives" constitute most of the people who object to the idea of "global warming" (but I might be wrong) and I thought "conservatives" claim to have values like "honesty" and "believing in the truth." I am therefore surprised that nobody (except me) has pointed out the dishonesty in the title of this thread. Hypocrisy?

[ShockCity]

The title of this entire thread is "Right Wing University says Global Warming a Natural Cycle."

We have established that the "Right Wing University" is MIT and I have shown that the MIT article in question does not mention "a Natural Cycle" and does not say "Global Warming a Natural Cycle."

I presume that "conservatives" constitute most of the people who object to the idea of "global warming" (but I might be wrong) and I thought "conservatives" claim to have values like "honesty" and "believing in the truth." I am therefore surprised that nobody (except me) has pointed out the dishonesty in the title of this thread. Hypocrisy?

You are doing such a good job of making them look foolish, I didn't want to butt in. You are entirely correct that the title of the thread is misleading and dishonest. The righties on here were so busy peeing all over themselves about how they percieved that the article claimed that GW was a natural cycle, that I was just enjoying them all making fools of themselves. The article says nothing about it being a "natural cycle".

[ShockCity]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/globalwarming.overview/index.html

The reason most cited -- by scientists and scientific organizations -- for the current warming trend is an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, which are in the atmosphere naturally and help keep the planet's temperature at a comfortable level.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for instance, has increased by 35 percent since the dawn of the industrial age, according to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commonly referred to as the IPCC.

The presence of methane is now 151 percent above pre-industrial levels, but the rate of increase has slowed in recent decades, according to the EPA. Meanwhile, nitrous oxide increased by about 18 percent during the past 200 years.

Many scientists and experts who have studied global warming believe the increase is primarily the result of human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, emissions from vehicles and the clearing of forests.