Uh oh another one jumps ship

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

But as you keep saying, there IS no established care as far as climate goes. In fact we're only finding out now how sick we are and the probable cause. In that scenario I'd say that computer models for solutions is as good as it's going to get!

But as good as we get is not necessarily good enough. Just today, the UN pressed for criminal penalties for GW violations. Do you want to go to jail for contradicting a computer model? The UN admitted that it was meeting resistance to draconian actions because of the pesky "uncertainties in the models" part of the IPCC report (the part I quoted extensively from above). See today's Drudge Report.

It's a matter of philosophy, I guess. In surgery, there are two types of surgeon;

1) if you don't know what to do, DO SOMETHING
2) if you don't know what to do, DO NOTHING


I was always the second type. That doesn't make me right, that's just my personality.

The assumptions of the pro-GW activists are myriad:
1) the data entered into the models are accurate
2) the models are accurate
3) the scenarios portrayed by the models are all bad for us
4) we know the cure and it is possible
5) we know the cost of the cure, and it is much less than the disease
6) in fact, in all ways, the cure will be better than the disease
7) there is no way we could make things worse (like bankrupting the western economies and plunging us into the cultural stone age)

So far, we are still arguing about assumption 1, 2 and 3. In my line of work, a bad outcome is not carte blanche to do ANYTHING just to say we were proactive. But again, that's me. If you have no certainty of a bad outcome, no definite course of action, only educated guesswork, it is better to let nature take its course. the human body, like the earth, often takes care of things better than us. Not always of course, but sometimes doing nothing is the correct, proactive choice.

 

[Bryan]

This thread isn't really about GW. It's just about the politics of GW.......and just politics. It reminds me of the Creation vs Evolution thread.

It is also about the credibility of those pushing the ideas. Whether everyone likes it or not, the figureheads of a movement get all the attention and critique.

Also, why did Pete Rose get into trouble betting on baseball? Why do we get upset with CEOs who dump stock to their benefit and call it insider trading?

I think it is valid to look at the figureheads of any organization to see if they are inappropriately gaining from their position.

Should it be invalid to question the motives of someone who tells the rest of us what to do, doesn't do it himself, and even sets up his own company to buy carbon offsets (er, uh, I mean STOCK) from?

Shakeybrainsurgen is right... doing something to appear as though you are part of the solution is often worse than doing nothing at all... in matters of brain surgery, sure. Do no harm, right? Maybe in matters as delicate as our environment, too?

 

[Skull]

NASA Debunks Part of Global Warming Myth, Will Media Report It?
By Noel Sheppard | November 14, 2007 - 12:23 ET

Is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration filled with climate change deniers?

Such seems likely to be alleged by hysterical alarmists in the press when and if they read a new study out of NASA which determined that "not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

Goes quite counter to all the recent media reports, as well as assertions by Nobel Laureate Al Gore, that low ice conditions in the Arctic are all the fault of that despicable -- albeit essential to life and naturally occurring! -- gas carbon dioxide.

Of course, it's quite unlikely many climate alarmists will even hear about this study, for today's green media wouldn't want to do anything that destroys their illusion that there's a scientific consensus regarding this matter.

As such, consider yourself fortunate to be apprised of the highlights (emphasis added throughout):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

[...]

The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said [James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory].

Somehow I imagine Morison won't be interviewed by any of the major television networks any time soon, especially as the study concluded that this circulation pattern may already be reversing possibly leading to increased ice levels in this area in coming years:

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."

Once again, another in a seeming litany of reports emerging offering scientific alternatives for climate change beyond it being all man's fault.

And folks wonder why so many people are skeptical concerning the anthropogenic impact on long-term weather patterns.

Of course, one thing's for certain: this news definitely won't make "An Inconvenient Truth" producer Laurie David happy!

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

 

[Skull]

And here is the actual report from JPL

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

News Releases

+ Larger image
This shows contours of the trend in ocean bottom pressure from 2002 to 2006 as measured by GRACE along with hypothetical trends that would apply at the circles if ocean salinity reverted from 1990s values to climatological conditions over the same period.


+ Larger image
In addition to satellite data from NASA's Grace mission, the scientists used measurements from Arctic Bottom Pressure Recorders deployed to the Arctic Ocean floor to monitor changes in Arctic Ocean circulation.

Tools:
+ Print this article
+ Join e-mail list
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007

PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean's surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.

The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.

Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

"While some 1990s climate trends, such as declines in Arctic sea ice extent, have continued, these results suggest at least for the 'wet' part of the Arctic -- the Arctic Ocean -- circulation reverted to conditions like those prevalent before the 1990s," he added.

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.

Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."

Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.

Grace monitors tiny month-to-month changes in Earth's gravity field caused primarily by the movement of water in Earth's land, ocean, ice and atmosphere reservoirs. As such it can infer changes in the weight of columns of ocean water. In contrast, the pressure gauges installed on the sea floor in 2005-2006 directly measured water pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Gauge data were remotely recovered during the first year of the study.

"The close agreement between the North Pole pressure gauges and Grace data demonstrates Grace's potential for tracking world ocean circulation," said study co-author John Wahr of the University of Colorado, Boulder.

"Satellite altimeters, such as NASA's Jason, are ideal for studying ocean circulation but can't be used at Earth's poles due to ice cover," said study co-author Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Our results show Grace can be a powerful tool for tracking changes in the distribution of mass in the Arctic Ocean, as well as its circulation."

Grace is a partnership between NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR). The University of Texas Center for Space Research, Austin, has overall mission responsibility. JPL developed the twin satellites. DLR provided the launch, and GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany, operates Grace. For more on Grace: GRACE - Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment .

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation.

Other media contacts for this study include: Peter West, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Va., 703-292-7761, pwest@nsf.gov ; and Jim Scott, University of Colorado, 303-492-3114, Jim.Scott@colorado.edu .

JPL is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

 

[Warthaug]

To reiterate: I don't discuss the data because there IS no data for the future.

The data coming from those models IS data, and we can validate (or invalidate) the accuracy of those predictions.

Not to mention the mass amount of data generated looking at current and past climates. And while you can wine about the models all you want, it doesn't change the fact that those data clearly demonstrate that the world is warming.

Models are just that, models. Models! Don't you get it? They are SIMULATIONS. These are FAKE worlds.

And yet they quite accurately model our own. If you don't like computer models then I'd suggest that you stop using vaccines (as many, like the annual flu shot, use genetic models to help predict the next years virus antigenic makeup), computer networks (which are optimized using models of insect behavior, of all things), traffic control (which often relies on computer models to fix traffic issues), anything engineered (computer models are used to test and optimize most products before even one prototype is seen), or anything based on statistics.

At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, computer modeling has become a cornerstone of modern science. The usefulness and power of these models has been validated time and time again.

Once again, going back to my own field of study, the new science of systems biology wherein biochemical pathways (and hopefully whole organisms one day) are modeled in computers has been an amazing tool. By simply entering the known chemical characteristics and known interactions of proteins we've been able to discover missing elements in biochemical pathways, accurately model the effects of certain drug, and even determine the purpose of genes that previously had no known function - all using those models you so readily disparage.

They are not FACT, they do not provide DATA, they have no CERTAINTY.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. The are as factual as the inputs and physics used to create those models. So long as they physics and inputs are correct the models will accurately reflect the real world. If they did not the whole of science would be invalidated, as all of the physics and chemistry we've discovered would be useless if it didn't have predictive value.

Likewise, the results they produce are data. And those data can be compared to real-world data to determine the accuracy of the model, and if the model is found to be deficient, determine where the flaws lie.

Lastly, they do have well-defined certainty; in fact with models you have greater certanty then when working in the real world. The reason for this is simple - you know just how variable your inputs are to start, you know where your input data is weak or missing, and you can manipulate the model across a far greater range then you can often manipulate the real world.

To assume otherwise is religion, not science.

Absolutely incorrect. Models are, and for a long time have been, a cornerstone of science. Science is not fact collecting like you seem to think. The goal of science is to understand the universe we live in. And the prediction of what the future holds is the epitome of scientific inquest - for accurate prediction means that we understand the underlying science to the point where physical processes can be predicted long in advance.

If I concede that all the current data is perfect (not a reality of course), it still doesn't make the models infallible.

Name one scientific principal based on "perfect" data. There isn't any, so don't bother wasting your time looking for it. Within science we have to deal with variation, randomness and unknown or uncontrollable variables. But none of those invalidate the result - if they did simple things like the computer you are reading this message on would never have existed. After all, computers operate on the basis of QED, which is in of itself the very study of randomness.

I see a lot of "appeal to authority" fallacies here.

Its not a fallacy if the authorities are basing their opinions on hard facts. And pointing out who is on what side does go a long ways towards credibility. Under your rational quoting Einstein in defense of relativity would be wrong as he is an authority, even though he invented the whole science...

Who else to trust? How about the climatologists who DISAGREE with the models. Oh, I know. They are hacks...and besides, we do science by show of hands now. The majority wins.

I never made such a claim, but:
1) Name 5 climatologists who disagree
2) Describe the scientific basis upon which they found their disagreement

I doubt you can achieve that. The scientific literature is lacking on papers showing a lack of a link. If those small number of individuals are correct there should be scientific papers demonstrating no link - i.e. evidence that their claims are true. This simply is not seen.

And that is the whole point that I've been trying to make. Their is a mountain of data supporting a human link. There is little, if any, which "goes against the grain".

When you get down to it, the scientific thing to do is to believe the data.

Some models predict a degree, some say six degrees, rise in the next century. Some say the ocean will rise six inches, some say a foot and a half. If two models can be off by three or four degrees, that suggests that the margin of error is greater than the lowest estimates. In other words, it's possible, when all models are considered, that cooling is within the margin of error!

Err, no. It is difficult to directly compare models in the way you propose for the simple reason that the investigators use different assumptions about what us lowly humans will do - i.e. how much CO2 we'll continue to put out, etc. So unless two models use exactly the same considerations for the human factor you cannot combine their results to calculate errors.

Also, the way in which error is calculated statistically is not how you envision. The discussion of how it is calculated is far too long (and frankly beyond the scope of discussion here) to go into, but the long and short is that even in the case of your example, error would not allow for cooling. If you want more on this you need to read up on the statistics of intra-model error calculation. I can provide citations if you need.

And if one model predicts one degree and another six...HOW CAN THAT BE!

As I said above - different assumptions in human behavior. Likewise there are still some areas under investigation, for which the science isn't completely nailed down. For example, their is some disagreement as to how big an effect positive feedback loops will play. Models which assume "no role" consistently come up with lower degrees of warming then do models which assume a large role. Even so, both forms of models still end up with net warming - the more conservative models just predict less.

These are paragons of accuracy to which we must subvert of lifestyles,

As I've pointed out repetitively on this thread, as have many others, there is no reason to loose our lifestyles. The idea that we have to give up modern life to prevent this is purely a myth, created by the anti-warming crowd, to scaring people into believing what they say.

At the end of the day we can all significantly decrease our CO2 emissions at a net savings to ourselves. I've done it - a >50% reduction, with a net savings to myself. And I live better then I did before - I'm not dropping $200 in gas each month...

The stock market is indeed a legitimate example...there is a wealth of past data regarding its behavior. Yes, it is human activity, but are human market forces more complex than global atmospherics? I think not.

They are not valid examples. The behavior of the climate is entirely determined by well-defined physical laws, and by those laws only. Hence, it is predictable, modelable, and doesn't even need past data to be modeled. Stock markets are not controlled by any defined laws, and are the epitome of randomness itself. Stock markets as as modelable as are lotteries.

But it is pointless arguing with someone who has such blind, irrational faith in computer models.

If warming was only based on those models I'd agree with you. But models are only one part of the data. When you get down to it, the earth is warming, as determined by nothing more then measuring the temperature of the globe. This warming corresponds to no known physical factor other then greenhouse gas levels. Laboratory and observational studies have demonstrated that the greenhouse effect is real, have determined exactly how much heat CO2 can hold in, and so forth.

What you are asking is for us to ignore things we observe happening in the world today, for no reason other then the models based on todays evidence cannot predict what will happen tomorrow.


Bryan

 

[Kim]

It is also about the credibility of those pushing the ideas. Whether everyone likes it or not, the figureheads of a movement get all the attention and critique.

Also, why did Pete Rose get into trouble betting on baseball? Why do we get upset with CEOs who dump stock to their benefit and call it insider trading?

I think it is valid to look at the figureheads of any organization to see if they are inappropriately gaining from their position.

Should it be invalid to question the motives of someone who tells the rest of us what to do, doesn't do it himself, and even sets up his own company to buy carbon offsets (er, uh, I mean STOCK) from?

Shakeybrainsurgen is right... doing something to appear as though you are part of the solution is often worse than doing nothing at all... in matters of brain surgery, sure. Do no harm, right? Maybe in matters as delicate as our environment, too?

There's no head of Global Warming - just thousands of scientists telling us we have a problem. It's ridiculous to compare it to insider trading by a CEO. Like I said - that's just politicizing the issue because you don't want to believe it.

As for doing nothing in a medical situation. When I was 3 we lived in Malaysia and I was bitten by a fly that gave me a form of Typhus - Scrubtyphus. This was in 1954. My temperature rose so high, at one point my heart stopped and I had to be resuscitated. The choice was to allow the fever to run it's course and hope I survived it - a poor option as my heart had already stopped once, or take a chance with a medicine that had only been tested on animals and two Malay patients. I was given the medicine and so am still here more than 50 years later telling you about it.

If Shakeybrainsurgen had been my doctor given his attitude to new/unproven things I'd have to wonder if I would be. Doing something sometimes means taking a risk...and the responsibilty. I suppose by doing nothing one can also just blame nature if something goes wrong - although it can also be called negligence.

 

[Wayward Son]

Listen to NASA? OK:

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

NASA and university scientists have determined that reversals in Arctic Ocean circulation, which is caused by atmospheric circulation changes, vary by the decades. "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

So the pattern of circulation in the Arctic affected the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, which decreased its specific gravity and changed its circulation. This is a naturally occurring change:

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming."

According to the report, it is too early to say but the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to its counterclockwise circulation pattern .. but change back it will, and then back the other way ... and and yet back again, as it seems to have always been doing.

 

[Far_X]

Listen to NASA? OK:

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

NASA and university scientists have determined that reversals in Arctic Ocean circulation, which is caused by atmospheric circulation changes, vary by the decades. "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."

So the pattern of circulation in the Arctic affected the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, which decreased its specific gravity and changed its circulation. This is a naturally occurring change:

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming."

According to the report, it is too early to say but the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to its counterclockwise circulation pattern .. but change back it will, and then back the other way ... and and yet back again, as it seems to have always been doing.

Well there is science for you.

 

[Wayward Son]

The real problem every day people face is in NOT getting a clear picture. We get snippets. Sometimes straight & factual, more often presented to us after being warped through the prism of bias held by whoever does the writing.

We generally don't get the real data. We get "so & so said this", whether so & so actually did or not. I've read interviews with several scientists whose work was used by the IPCC & held up to validate claims, but who say they do not agree with the conclusions & want such impressions to stop.

Seems like I'm constantly turning around & reading or seeing a show about some research being done that turns previously held beliefs on their head. So no, there damned well isn't consensus. There are people doing work who refute plenty of the claims made about this subject. Somehow, no one is supposed to listen to any of them, only the others.

That does not seem like good science to me, period.

Research continues to be done & that's good. We don't know what we don't know. 100 years from now we'll still be learning new things about it. But it isn't the research & any results that pose a menace to us, it's the damned politicians & activists & what they will do if allowed. We've seen no shortage of examples. Outright lies are told, but then justified because they feel they have to make it sound bad enough to convince us. Much of the practical reality for people is that there are people, both malicious as well as well intentioned, who are trying very hard to exact serious, substantive changes in our societies. They want massive transfers of power & money to "save the world". The hysteria is deafening & we tune it out.

No one listens to the wind. Once you have proven yourself a liar to me, I will NOT extend you trust in anything. You could later have the Truth, capital T, directly from God himself but I will never know it because you have earned the loss of my trust. That's where we are with many of these people.

The politicians lie. The news reporters lie. The activists lie. They've been caught at it too much. I am & will continue to be unwilling to turn my world upside down at the urging of these people.

I don't buy it.

Biggest

Con

Job

Ever.

 

[shakeybrainsurgeon]

There's no head of Global Warming - just thousands of scientists telling us we have a problem. It's ridiculous to compare it to insider trading by a CEO. Like I said - that's just politicizing the issue because you don't want to believe it.

As for doing nothing in a medical situation. When I was 3 we lived in Malaysia and I was bitten by a fly that gave me a form of Typhus - Scrubtyphus. This was in 1954. My temperature rose so high, at one point my heart stopped and I had to be resuscitated. The choice was to allow the fever to run it's course and hope I survived it - a poor option as my heart had already stopped once, or take a chance with a medicine that had only been tested on animals and two Malay patients. I was given the medicine and so am still here more than 50 years later telling you about it.

If Shakeybrainsurgen had been my doctor given his attitude to new/unproven things I'd have to wonder if I would be. Doing something sometimes means taking a risk...and the responsibilty. I suppose by doing nothing one can also just blame nature if something goes wrong - although it can also be called negligence.

A perfect example of what me call "I had a guy once..." medicine. You may well still be here if you hadn't taken the drug, too. Anecdotal reports are basically worthless for basing sound clinical decisions. That's why we do prospective controlled trials of medications. Gene therapy sounded like a great new thing too...until it started killing people. As did bone marrow transplantation for non-hematologic malignancies. until it was found to be less than worthless. The people, including me, who, in the 1990s, urged caution in using these approaches until controlled trials were available were accused at the time as being reactionary, cruel and overly conservative. In the year 2007, we claimed another label: correct on all counts. This isn't boasting...we could have been WRONG too, and if these therapies had been useful we would have been complicit in impeding useful therapies. The takehome message: NOTHING is as simple as it seems. Science is rife with dilemmas and doubts. Unfortunately, GW advocates seem to see only one side of the issue. They have no doubt, and that is disturbing to me.

A central dilemma in the GW controversy is that it really isn't science in the conventional sense. In science, we propose a null hypothesis and design experimental protocols to accept or reject the hypothesis. What is happening here is assuming a positive hypothesis and using computer models to extrapolate from past data to future scenarios. This isn't a criticism, it's just this is an unconventional way to do science.

My point all along hasn't been that this approach is right or wrong, or that the models are right or wrong, just that the degree of uncertainty is much, much greater than the advocates of GW will admit. The problem is, you can't put people in jail, enact taxes, create legislation, etc when you show doubt. GW scientists feel they must shed the mantle of scientific cynicism (which true scientists must wear) in order to mobilize the degree of political power they think they need to save the globe.