American Geophysical Union statement confirms global; prominent skeptic signs on

SF Chronicle/American Geophysical Union ^ | December 18, 2003 | David Perlman

[cogitator]

Leaders of one of the nation's top scientific organizations issued a new warning this week that human activities -- most notably the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industries -- are warming Earth's climate at a faster rate than ever.

[RightWhale]

When I used to do this, the models were relatively simple. The earth was little more than blocks representing continents and oceans, there were 7 differential equations representing the atmosphere and you could vary insolation, speed of rotation, various factors. A lot of the complexity now is the earth model itself. The continents aren't simple blocks anymore, but have mountains and other elevations, thermal absorptivity that varies from point to point, and there are a lot of points, and inputs of localized heat sources and I suppose chemicals. And then there were 200 weather stations around the world with any kind of coherent data; now weather satellites dump incomprehensible amounts of data into your model. Todays's models are nearly infinitely more detailed, and I don't believe that including CO₂ in the model is a political choice.

All the same, we shouldn't be moving from computer models to legislation so quickly. We still know next to nothing.

[Semper Paratus]

what did the AGU say about the US, Europe, the 3rd world, china and Russia? or are you putting words into their mouths?

I did? I thought I was clear that Kyoto would have done that. Kyoto used the findings of groups like this to push their agenda base treaty.

[sauropod]

I'll believe global warming is real when Sallie Baliunas and Fred Singer sign up as believing it is real.

[ancient_geezer]

The modellers are not modelling facts, but are modelling the assumption of global warming, and they all put too much weight on the assumption that most all warming is due to man-made CO2.

As regards the representation of solar irradiation data into such models.

Conclusions of the Workshop on Ion--Aerosol--Cloud Interactions,
CERN, 18--20 April 2001
A.W. Wolfendale

http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2001/2001-007/p249.pdf

In the case of the current global warming, there is increasing agreement that the climate model fits to the temperature record need to amplify the solar contribution by about a factor 3. The presently-assumed solar contribution is only from the (Lean et al., 1995) direct irradiance changes. An additional, indirect, solar contribution could either decrease or increase the projections of the anthropogenic effects. (The latter possibility arises since an increased solar attribution during the last century could indicate a steeper anthropogenic rise in recent decades.)

The satellite data analysis presented at the workshop by Svensmark indicates a solar cycle correlation with low cloud cover, suggesting that the solar-climate mechanism may involve clouds. Again, at this stage both electromagnetic radiation and GCRs remain as candidates. This may provide the first clue to the long-sought amplification mechanism linking solar and climate variability. However the underlying processes may involve subtleties since the observed solar correlation is confined to low clouds, and the global correlation map of low cloud cover shows no preference for high geomagnetic latitudes - both of which appear to be counter-intuitive at first sight.

Vote: The distribution of votes on the question "Does cosmic ray ionization play a role in the climate?" was equally divided between "?" and "Yes", with zero votes for "No". This implies that there are reasonable indications that cosmic rays have the potential to affect the climate but that the question of whether they are significant is far from settled.

As I have stated before: A model can only reflect the apriori postulates of its programmers. If any physical processes are not adequately characterized in a model, all outputs are in question.

[RightWhale]

A model can only reflect the apriori postulates of its programmers

We had a grad student on staff from Taiwan who seemed to have some kind of mechanical calculator in his head. It was fun to ask him questions like that, what if the insolation is increased in the model or thge earth spins 10% faster. You could practically hear the wheels spin as he solved differential equations in his head. His answers were always right on, and sometimes he would think it worthwhile to go down to the computer lab at Columbia to run it. Usually not, though.

There isn't a scientist who wouldn't like to set the world on its head, but you know a scientist must first run the gauntlet so he can parrot the modern science. Where he goes after he gets his PhD and key to the universe is up to him, but he must pass the test first. If he can find the fallacies and absurdities while still in his formal studies, fine, but for most it is difficult to do much more than extend things a little. A man might be cleverer than 2 or 3 others, but he probably won't be able to top a thousand or a million who are all trying to top those who have gone before. Like on another thread, which physicist wouldn't dearly love to find a way to travel faster than the peeed of light? Which meteorologist wouldn't want to develop a model of earth's climate 10 times better that runs on 1/10th the computer?

[ancient_geezer]

Which meteorologist wouldn't want to develop a model of earth's climate 10 times better that runs on 1/10th the computer?

Making models ever more intricate does not make them any more capable of coming up with the correct answers when aprior postulates used in describing physical processes are insufficiently understood, not to mention the wags used for inputs of the models in use.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2003/cap_03-02-20.html

"The Economist, which provides the best environmental reporting of any major news source, carried a small story last week about a simple methodological error in the latest U.N. global warming report that has huge implications. The article, "Hot Potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Had Better Check Its Calculations" (February 15 print edition), reviews the work of two Australian statisticians who note an anomaly in the way the IPCC estimated world carbon dioxide emissions for the 21st century."

......

"The IPCC's method has the effect of vastly overestimating future economic growth (and, therefore, CO2 emissions) by developing nations. The fine print of the IPCC's projections, for example, calls for the real per-capita incomes of Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Turkey, and even North Korea to surpass real per-capita income in the United States by the end of the century. Algeria? North Korea? The IPCC must be inhaling its own emissions to believe this."

 

No meteoroligist gets a unilateral say as to what goes into the UN/IPCC models, everything is vetted by committee with a very strong agenda.

[RightWhale]

Well, if that's the case there wouldn't be much science going on. Still, there are other agencies sponsoring real scientists doing real science in this discipline. How about NASA? Are they bowing before a UN committee with their climate models?

[ancient_geezer]

RW I think you had better read and attempt to understand what was being shown in the following paper before being so confident in the precision of the UN/IPCC models.

 

REVIEW

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic
carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/ModelSoon.html

[RightWhale]

Okay. I have read the abstract. I don't see a problem. Is there something in the body that should be alarming?

[WOSG]

This is such a great statement President Bush should have this guy on as his spokesman and then say "I agree".

He makes perfect sense and speaks with authority.

[ancient_geezer]

Well, if that's the case there wouldn't be much science going on.

There might be hope for you yet.

Still, there are other agencies sponsoring real scientists doing real science in this discipline. How about NASA? Are they bowing before a UN committee with their climate models?

There are no other models. Everything is based on the same group of models currently in use. Where there is a lack of understanding of substantive processes involved, and there we lackaccurate and complete measures of inputs to characterise the state vectors for a model, how do you create an accurate model?

It doesn't matter who creates the model the lack of fundamental knowlege of the processes involved and current state to sufficient resolution simply precludes building that accurate model you want to believe in.

[RightWhale]

I was under the impression that a research office might develop its own model if its grad students were suitably inspired. We had ours, based on the fundamental equations of aerodynamics, Coriolis force, that kind of thing. Seems like they still do that 40 years later. The type of charts they develop seem to be about the same kind of output. It would be hard to fake considering that there are scientists interested in this and they don't put up with bad science. Many would give their eyeteeth to blow holes in a bad model.

[ancient_geezer]

I don't see a problem. Is there something in the body that should be alarming?

"We further conclude that the incautious use of GCMs to make future climate projections from incomplete or unknown forcing scenarios is antithetical to the intrinsically heuristic value of models. Such uncritical application of climate models has led to the commonly held but erroneous impression that modeling has proven or substantiated the hypothesis that CO2 added to the air has caused or will cause significant global warming."

I would suggest you read the guts of the paper to learn why the state of the current "state of the art" GCMs are simply inadequate to the task of saying anything as regards climate or making political and economic decisions effecting the world or US for that matter.

[RightWhale]

The article is a warning to be aware of method, and it seems to be addressed to government decision-makers such as the Kyoto delegates. There is no problem with this. If a model has shortcomings, scientists and their grad students are working diligently right now to unearth and expose the fallacies. The models look pretty good, way better than what we had. Are they ready for predictive use? Maybe, but not for atrocities such as the Kyoto Accord.

[Always Right]

Many would give their eyeteeth to blow holes in a bad model.

LOL, I think you underestimate the level the global warming agenda has infested this 'science'. The only information that is critically attacked and looked at are those that contradict the 'theory'. I have just seen too much from these global warming 'scientist'. I am only an engineer by education, but I find the level of politicalization of this 'science' highly discusting.

[ancient_geezer]

I was under the impression that a research office might develop its own model if its grad students were suitably inspired.

LOL, works so long as it doesn't challenge the UN/IPCC political agenda. Not very inspiring to see ones career in jeopardy before you even get out of the shoot.

Many would give their eyeteeth to blow holes in a bad model.

Not many are willing to fact the heat and loss of funding to accomplish that goal. Who do you figure on getting to fund your research? Or do you figure to make a significant contribution without support and funding?

[Criminal Number 18F]

when the great ecologists ran this continent.

Heh. The "great ecologists" = primitive hunter-gatherers.

Which is what we'd all be, if we listened to these faddish purveyors of trend science. Thirty years ago, these same frauds were predicting an ice age and global starvation by 2000.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[DefCon]

The title of the article has been changed by the poster
(adding "prominent skeptic signs on")

The actual title reads:
"Earth warming at faster pace, say top science group's leaders
Statement by American Geophysical Union's council
warns temperature change is real and human-caused"

[MissAmericanPie]

Thanks alot. I don't doubt their claims, but only because it falls in with biblical prophecy in regards to the times we are in. But according to scriptures the reason for the warm up is the Sun's increasing heat, not man, or anything man is doing.

[Criminal Number 18F]

If things are going toward Lysenkoism, then we are probably doomed forever because there isn't another science establishment to eventually win out this time.

Of course, it wasn't science that won out that time, but politics, by defeating Lysenko's sponsors. Had the politics gone the other way, our kids might not be speaking Russian but they would be learning about the heritability of acquired traits in school.

There was an interesting speech by Michael Crichton on this type of mob-think non-science posted recently. Someone have the link?

I think a lot of the problem goes back to our schools. There are few teachers qualified to teach science, and the textbooks are pabulum. It's no accident that the majority of the PhD's at graduation have accents... as if the only way we can get students with any grasp of science is to import them.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F