PDA

View Full Version : General Politics What goes into Climate study anyway?


jidar
11-16-2009, 11:19 AM
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QlyorcJ28UA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QlyorcJ28UA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

A lot apparently, and yet still "them dumb scientists don't know nuthin"

patteeu
11-16-2009, 01:48 PM
They had a lot of people and billions of dollars worth of equipment working on intelligence prior to the Iraq war and they still got some things very wrong.

Brock
11-16-2009, 01:51 PM
Funding.

BigRedChief
11-16-2009, 02:01 PM
Membership in this faternity?
http://www.treehuggersofamerica.org/images/tree_hugger.jpg

BucEyedPea
11-16-2009, 02:22 PM
a lot of hot air

HonestChieffan
11-16-2009, 03:04 PM
depends on the outcome you intend to prove.

alpha_omega
11-16-2009, 03:09 PM
They had a lot of people and billions of dollars worth of equipment working on intelligence prior to the Iraq war and they still got some things very wrong.

Excellent (yet quite ironic) point!

tiptap
11-17-2009, 07:56 AM
They had a lot of people and billions of dollars worth of equipment working on intelligence prior to the Iraq war and they still got some things very wrong.

I would say that the science effort on both fronts were constrained by conservation fields. That is things like energy or matter conservation. And affirmed by tags of events that include spectra analysis and Hall's detection of agents important to the activities under investigation. Whether that is possibilities and evidence for atmospheric studies or weapon detection.

And that the evidence for say WMD (I am not arguing that this WAS the reason to invade Iraq) did not under conservation laws and detection methods allow for the volume of material for actual WMD, though this speaks nothing to intent and the intellectual power related to WMD in the country and under the direction of its leaders.

On the other hand the amount of Greenhous Gases in the atmosphere is detected and is sufficient to allow for increase in atmospheric temperatures as agents in isolation. Those determinations do not reflect the negative feedback that might be seen in the atmospheric system to counter balance the measured increases. And at the same time there is a real measured increase in temperature. And the explanation for that increase cannot by conservation laws be dismissed simply as natural. The energy increase in the atmosphere has to be accounted for.

googlegoogle
11-18-2009, 02:16 AM
Global ice age threats were in the vogue 30 years ago.

jidar
11-18-2009, 07:46 AM
I would say that the science effort on both fronts were constrained by conservation fields. That is things like energy or matter conservation. And affirmed by tags of events that include spectra analysis and Hall's detection of agents important to the activities under investigation. Whether that is possibilities and evidence for atmospheric studies or weapon detection.

And that the evidence for say WMD (I am not arguing that this WAS the reason to invade Iraq) did not under conservation laws and detection methods allow for the volume of material for actual WMD, though this speaks nothing to intent and the intellectual power related to WMD in the country and under the direction of its leaders.

On the other hand the amount of Greenhous Gases in the atmosphere is detected and is sufficient to allow for increase in atmospheric temperatures as agents in isolation. Those determinations do not reflect the negative feedback that might be seen in the atmospheric system to counter balance the measured increases. And at the same time there is a real measured increase in temperature. And the explanation for that increase cannot by conservation laws be dismissed simply as natural. The energy increase in the atmosphere has to be accounted for.

Common sense really.

It's not that hard to
A: Make an accurate measurement of emissions (known barrels of oil burned globally * average emissions per barrel)
B: Measure the chemicals in the atmosphere.

Somehow though I'm supposed to believe that every scientist with any credibility is getting this wrong because politically motivated dipshits on talk radio say so.

In any case the debate is over. Even most of the right (members of the former Bush Administration are a good example) now agree that emissions are a problem even if they don't agree on what (if anything) should be done about it. The only people left are fringe nut jobs who are the remnants of the debate from the 90s. These people seem to be under the impression that somehow science has made any headway on this issue in 15 years.

HonestChieffan
11-18-2009, 07:48 AM
Debate is so over the Copenhagen Moonbat gathering has fallen apart and scientists are eating their own young over new data and studies that disprove all this global warming horse poop.

Brock
11-18-2009, 08:39 AM
30 years ago, these same scientists were saying we were heading into a "New Ice Age".

tiptap
11-19-2009, 08:18 AM
So much lies. The peer reviewed journals, during the period 30 years ago, that had articles dealing with predictions of temperature on the scale of 100's of years, overwhelmingly pointed to higher temperatures or to no change. Only about 10 percent indicated dropping temperatures.

If however you increase that scale to 100 thousand years, then yes the predictions are a decrease in temperature. That is because we are in an Interglacial Period within a Ice Age. So the details in stating such discussions is important. Now there were some commercial publications like Time Magazine or National Geographic, that ENTERTAINED the notion of the return of advancing Glaciers. They sought out opinions that gave this perspective.

Brock
11-19-2009, 08:21 AM
Now there were some commercial publications like Time Magazine or National Geographic, that ENTERTAINED the notion of the return of advancing Glaciers. They sought out opinions that gave this perspective.

That's what's happening now. Nobody wants to talk to the many, many scientists that won't sell out their integrity to the ongoing money and power grab.

tiptap
11-19-2009, 08:26 AM
Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970’s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970’s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40’s to the 70’s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970’s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970’s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.

Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the “ice age” strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the “Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:

1. Establish National climatic research program
2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

1. The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

tiptap
11-19-2009, 08:31 AM
To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard – “How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?” – must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in his newspaper stories.


The problem is that the argument has played out in competing anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time. But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today’s science-politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time human time scales. The results are currently in press at the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 1970s.

Update: Full paper available here. http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

tiptap
11-19-2009, 08:40 AM
That's what's happening now. Nobody wants to talk to the many, many scientists that won't sell out their integrity to the ongoing money and power grab.

Yes every Spring now the Heartland Conference PAYS people (up to 50,000) to provide talks and papers on Climate to indicate that Global Warming is wrong or not of human origin. Add in the 100 of Billions of dollars of interests from Energy Companies like ExxonMobile, The big 10 Appalachian Coal companies, Cheasepeake Natural Gas, the large Concrete Companies, all looking to increase profits by increasing CO 2 production into the atmosphere.

That is in contrast to the normal pattern of securing papers for conferences and the modest monies involved with Green Industries or even the budgets of government agencies. Historically the USGS has been aggressive in helping all energy companies find resources. But they recognize the problem of rising temperatures.