Meanwhile... Is the Globe Cooling?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ninearms wrote:
As you are obviously an expert in climate science and the research methods thereof perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate on the argument expressed above, noting how and why the methodology is flawed, and how this might be remedied in future research. I’m sure the world would appreciate your learned assistance.

Thermodynamic processes in an uncontrolled setting are too complex and rely on the mediation of an infinite variety of parameters which have to be first understood in relation to each other. In other words ultimate cause and effect cannot be known because everything effects everything else, ad infinitum. There is no controlled environment in which we can make comparisons to this or that effect and the infinite variety that occur due to other natural processes.

Current “experiments” rely on nothing but historical interpretation of data without a comparison of what we would measure without a human influence. That is bad science.

There is no way to know the extent of human influence on climate. This is not to say there is no influence but rather that if there is we cannot make any meaningful interpretation of it.

As a scientist I must be open minded to the possibility of natural phenomena but one of my firsts tasks is to ask: How can I know it?

Science is a useful tool but is has its limits.[/quote]

I would like to know what your control is for global climate. The fact is, that all the models we have are way off.

62

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I would like to know what your control is for global climate. The fact is, that all the models we have are way off.[/quote]

That is precisely the problem. There is no control group.

63

[quote]ninearms wrote:
Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.[/quote]

The IPCC and their tame scientists are the ones using flawed computer models to suggest man is melting the planet whilst admitting they ignore real-world data and base their recommendations on virtual-world and totally inadequate climate simulators. “The data (real world facts) don’t matter, we are basing our recommendations on the climate models” said Chris Folland of the UK Met Office at a presentation in the USA.

We now learn that over 90,000 measurements of atmospheric CO2 were taken by renowned scientists between 1812 and 1961; they showed three periods when CO2 was much higher than today’s levels. Because that didn’t fit the agenda, they were described by the IPCC as “unreliable” though many were carried out by Nobel-winning scientists.

Don’t fall for the lies from junk scientists eager to keep the research grants flowing from governments and “pay us more taxes and we will control the worlds climate” politicians. There is nothing happening to climate that has not happened many times before.

Why are real scientists accused of being in the pay of “Big Oil” and therefore liars? The ones pushing the great AGW myth are in the pay of politicians , the most honest folks on the planet. Ha.

64

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Why are you talking about stupid scientists when you don’t understand the basics of energy conservation?

I am a physicst. I understand energy conservation quite well. It is you that does not. Energy conservation says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Meaning the ice COULD in fact melt all at once the energy would just be transfered to something else – you know HEAT?[/quote]

Like the old joke, ‘When I entered school, I couldn’t even spell physicst and now I are one.’ When you look at the molecular scale, it is reasonable to talk statistically and describe each molecule as having a temperature-dependent probability of sublimating from or condensing onto a ice surface. But this statistical approach is inappropriate for blocks of ice. We should be talking about thermodynamics. You were trying to discuss the macroscopic with a language appropriate for the microscopic.

Obviously, I do know about heat, at least well enough to come up with an estimate of the heat that would need to be transferred (with 3 r’s) to something else. Care to estimate the probability of transferring exajoules to ‘something else’?

65

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I would like to know what your control is for global climate. The fact is, that all the models we have are way off.

That is precisely the problem. There is no control group.[/quote]

I though you were a physicist. Where was the ‘control group’ for Bernt Brockhouse when he measured phonon dispersion curves with neutron scattering? There was none, he perfected his technique and measured the phonon dispersion curves. Once crystal, one measure for a given momentum transfer. His technique earned a Nobel Prize, it is good science.

When a paleontology unearths the remains of an unknown specie, what do they use as a control group? They will certainly use calibration standards for particular measurements, but this isn’t like a test of a marginally effective drug where only careful statistics are needed to determine if an effect is real.

You don’t need control groups to do science. This is only one technique, not a universal requirement for good science.

66

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I would like to know what your control is for global climate. The fact is, that all the models we have are way off.

That is precisely the problem. There is no control group.

I though you were a physicist. Where was the ‘control group’ for Bernt Brockhouse when he measured phonon dispersion curves with neutron scattering? There was none, he perfected his technique and measured the phonon dispersion curves. Once crystal, one measure for a given momentum transfer. His technique earned a Nobel Prize, it is good science.

When a paleontology unearths the remains of an unknown specie, what do they use as a control group? They will certainly use calibration standards for particular measurements, but this isn’t like a test of a marginally effective drug where only careful statistics are needed to determine if an effect is real.

You don’t need control groups to do science. This is only one technique, not a universal requirement for good science.
[/quote]

There is a difference between predicting climate using climate models and telling what effects of what part of the temperature data come from humans.

I’m not familiar with the neutron scattering, but I can argue your point with paleontology. What you described was the validation of a new species. What scientifically makes it a new species? Comparing it to existing knowledge of other species. The other species would be your control group.

Though I really consider that more of a clerical situation involving recording and labeling, not real science.

The real science would involve trying to guess what the diet was, or if it was a social animal, ect. And once again the control would be existing species, how is this new species different and why?

Short of the actually giving a new thing a name there is always a control of some sort.

The problem with the climate is that it is just too complex with too many variables and too little information about a human free world. Climatologists can’t even agree on an average global temperature, much less anything orders of magnitude more complicated.

Edit: The word species has no meaning at all without anything to compare it to, it is inherent to the label itself.

67

[quote]Journeyman wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I would like to know what your control is for global climate. The fact is, that all the models we have are way off.

That is precisely the problem. There is no control group.

I though you were a physicist. Where was the ‘control group’ for Bernt Brockhouse when he measured phonon dispersion curves with neutron scattering? There was none, he perfected his technique and measured the phonon dispersion curves. Once crystal, one measure for a given momentum transfer. His technique earned a Nobel Prize, it is good science.

When a paleontology unearths the remains of an unknown specie, what do they use as a control group? They will certainly use calibration standards for particular measurements, but this isn’t like a test of a marginally effective drug where only careful statistics are needed to determine if an effect is real.

You don’t need control groups to do science. This is only one technique, not a universal requirement for good science.
[/quote]

Like I said I don’t specifically know Bert’s work, but with the very way you made your statement you contradicted yourself. You said he perfected his technique. Meaning he started one way and through trial and error arrived at a solution.

Each trail progressively as the control for the next, eliminating variables. You know this way had this result, let me change this one thing I know keeping other things the same and see how that changes the result. That’s how good science works.

I’m also assuming results for this experiment were verified through other means, and the verification can really be considered a control as well.

(Yes you can also do multiple variable experiments with DOE, I was simplifying, but you still have to have a control)

68

[quote]ninearms wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ninearms wrote:
Nature Geoscience 1, 750 - 754 (2008)
Published online: 30 October 2008

Attribution of polar warming to human influence

Nathan P. Gillett1, Dáithí A. Stone2,3, Peter A. Stott4, Toru Nozawa5, Alexey Yu. Karpechko1, Gabriele C. Hegerl6, Michael F. Wehner7 & Philip D. Jones1

The polar regions have long been expected to warm strongly as a result of anthropogenic climate change, because of the positive feedbacks associated with melting ice and snow. Several studies have noted a rise in Arctic temperatures over recent decades, but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence, owing to sparse observations and large natural variability. Both warming and cooling trends have been observed in Antarctica, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report concludes is the only continent where anthropogenic temperature changes have not been detected so far, possibly as a result of insufficient observational coverage. Here we use an up-to-date gridded data set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four coupled climate models to assess the causes of the observed polar temperature changes. We find that the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence. Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.

Their methods of measurement are insufficient to determine a human influence or not. In fact, it is physically impossible to measure the effect of human influence without doing a very long term controlled study in the absence of human activity. No credible scientist would accept the methods used in this paper.

As you are obviously an expert in climate science and the research methods thereof perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate on the argument expressed above, noting how and why the methodology is flawed, and how this might be remedied in future research. I’m sure the world would appreciate your learned assistance.

I look forward to your comments.

Regards.[/quote]

I look forward to you actually reading the meat of the report produced by scientists, not the summary edited by politicians.