backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 104 comment(s) - last by Shuxclams.. on Sep 4 at 6:35 PM

Satellite imagery of El Nino currents in 2006  (Source: NASA)
Carbon-dioxide out; "synchronized chaos" in

"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt" --Washington Post headline, November 2, 1922.

If there was any doubt that fear-mongering has long been cherished by the media, the above headline should put the question to bed. But that 80-year old news story also illustrates two of the great problems for the global warming theory -- its inability to explain sudden climate shifts in the Earth's past, and to explain why the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are so unequally affected by warming. 

A team of mathematicians have come forth with a startling new theory that solves both these problems. Led by Dr. Anastasios Tsonis, their model says the known cycles of the Earth's oceans -- the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino (Southern Oscillation) and the North Pacific Oscillation -- all tend to try to synchronize with each other. 

The theory is based on a branch of mathematics known as Sychronized Chaos.  The math predicts the degree of coupling to increase over time, causing the solution to "bifurcate," or split. Then, the synchronization vanishes.  The result is a climate shift.

Eventually the cycles begin to sync up again, causing a repeating pattern of warming and cooling,  along with sudden changes in the frequency and strength of El Nino events.

Better yet, their theory has predictive power. The model predicts past shifts in the year 1913 (explaining the strong warming of the 20s and 30s), 1942 (resolving the post-WW2 cooling trend) and 1978 (covering our current warming). The model predicts another shift to occur around the year 2033. Most shocking of all is their prediction for the year 2100 to be slightly cooler than present day, despite the assumption of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.  Eye-popping indeed.

Is carbon-dioxide really so ineffective at warming? A new study by Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute seems to think so. Its conclusion is that, while CO2 does have some effect, that "it can never play the decisive role attributed to it" in global warming, and that its effects have been grossly overstated.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Kuroyama on 8/14/2007 8:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
History is littered with theories which accurately predicted the past but turned out to be useless for future predictions. In fact, it's not all that hard to make any model you like fit historic data. Based on a quick Google search it is clear that going back 10+ years Dr Tsonis has been a global warming skeptic, so he is certainly not an impartial observer. Of course this does not discredit his views, for instance the mathematician Serge Lang was a very vocal critic of what he considered to be shoddy research into the connection between HIV and AIDS up until he died recently, and no one really questions his intelligence (although he could be quite a jerk).

It'll be interesting to see what these papers have to say. Although my specialty is not dynamical systems, chaos, or atmospheric science, I do have a PhD in a closely related field so I figure I have as much a chance as most of making out the mathematical integrity of the many pages on his web page (will report back in the next day or so).




By Zurtex on 8/14/2007 10:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
I was skimming over this, the odd reference to topological terms and what seemed like topological terms. It's a bit new to me when dealing which such applied mathematics (I mainly keep my head in pure, but I'm only starting a Masters).

A particular phrase got me a little curious that he has on his front page of his web site:

"Total number of links (connections) at each geographic location."

When he says connections, is he speaking of the differential geometry term, some geo-physicist term or some more relaxed informal "English style" definition?

I leant about connections last semester, and them being generalizations of exterior differentiation to vector-valued differential forms, so I'm still getting a bit of a buzz off finding related mathematics to it that I can understand. So I'm not too bothered if I don't get an answer, probabily look it up myself at some point.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Kuroyama on 8/14/2007 10:53:25 PM , Rating: 4
I have to lend my voice to those who say that Masher is mis-representing the Geophysical Research Article. There have been plenty of comments on specific points (graphs, etc), so I'll stick to an overall explanation of the paper instead.

Here's my understanding of it. The article considers changes in 4 variables (basically certain measurements of oceans). It considers what happens when they are synchronized (i.e. basically correlated) and/or coupled (i.e. movement of one explains movements of the others). These are not the same because as we all learn in intro to statistics, in a non-linear system things can be highly coupled but have zero correlation (the classic example being that fuel efficiency of your car depends in a clear way on its speed, but yet they can have zero correlation).

Anyways, the authors of this paper claim only that when the variables become synchronized, and then more and more strongly coupled, then this is followed by a sudden change in climate behavior. They find that without the increase in coupling then the climate change doesn't occur.

In layman's terms, look at the stock market. There is a general trend, that in the long term prices go up. Beyond this things are fairly random. However, if we look at local fluctuations (say over 7-15 years as in this paper), when we notice an increasingly strengthening trend of everyone saying "buy buy" or "sell sell" (i.e. synchronized and increasing coupling) then it is quite likely that a sudden change in the market is likely to occur. Happened at the end of the bubble in Japan, end of the dot-com boom in the US, and may be happening in the US right now with real estate.

Interesting stuff. But this does not mean that the overall trend is wrong. It may be that a market transition goes from increasing prices, then suddenly jumps to a period where past models are invalid and prices drop, then suddenly they are increasing, then suddenly stable, etc. Each time the synchronize + coupling effect preceded the market change, but it may still true that the overall trend is an increase in prices.

If we want to conclude anything from this it is that regardless of the underlying trend in global temperature changes (existent or non-existent), we should expect eras that buck the overall trend entirely. Many of you would suggest that the current "global warming" era is the one bucking the trend, but it might be the "global cooling" era. Realistically we need to look at data spanning the longest possible time period in order to try to discern the underlying trend around which these miscellaneous fluctuations are occurring. This seems to be a warming trend (whether anthropogenic or otherwise), and this paper seems to agree on that point at least.

Last but not least, the suggestion about 2100 is ludicrous. If we believe this paper then after the 2035 turning point the current paradigm will basically become broken, and at least as far as short-term predictions are concerned then anything after that would be speculation. To repeat a point made in previous paragraphs, long-term predictions are a different matter and this is primarily concerned with the behavior of the randomness / chaos in the system.

One last illustration of the idea. As long as you can look around and easily find "flaws" in the global warming idea (eg. more ice in Antartica bucking the trend in the Arctic) then things are likely to stay in the post-1970's paradigm (gradual temperature increases), but when it starts to feel like "ALL trends point towards warming" then it may be the time to bet your money against this. But climate change proponents haven't really said otherwise; witness all the claims that warming in Greenland might cause a flood of fresh water and a sudden cooling in Europe (or even in NYC as the silly movie "The Day After Tomorrow" suggested).


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/2007 12:56:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "Interesting stuff. But this does not mean that the overall trend is wrong."

Obviously, the purpose of this research was not to disprove global warming by itself, but rather simply to prove that the past climate shifts (particularly the one beginning in the mid-1970s) are explainable without resorting to rising CO2.

That said, when one removes the forcing given in this model, the the justification for CO2 does become considerably weaker. If nothing else, the rate of the long-term warming is considerably less steep.

> "If we believe this paper then after the 2035 turning point the current paradigm will basically become broken"

I'm not sure why you say this; the paper specifically identifies bifurcations occurring at both 2033 and 2073. The model doesn't end at 2035.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 1:08:14 AM , Rating: 2
I've not done bifurcations properly since year 1 of my BSc in mathematics (did a quirky coarse on the fundamentals of chaos theory). But it's essentially when you have a graph split off in to multiple directions (namely 2 directions). So if a bifurcation of predicting weather climate occurs 2035, then the environment can take different paths at that point right? (I may be seeing this completely wrong)

So if this does occur in the environment, then any prediction after that would not really work, because there is a potential for your prediction relying on one thing in 2035 and it doing entirely the opposite.

Given that Dr. Anastasios Tsonis has one of his articles linked to on the front page entitled "Is global warming injecting randomness into the climate", he's probabily not fundamentally opposed to the idea of global warming.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/2007 1:17:52 AM , Rating: 3
> "But [a bifurcation is] essentially when you have a graph split off in to multiple directions...if a bifurcation of predicting weather climate occurs 2035, then the environment can take different paths at that point right?"

More generally in chaos theory, a bifurcation is a period doubling that indicates the onset of a chaotic response. It doesn't imply the climate model has two solutions, neither of which can be chosen.

> "Given that Dr. Anastasios Tsonis has one of his articles...entitled "Is global warming injecting randomness into the climate", he's probabily not fundamentally opposed to the idea of global warming"

To Dr. Tnonis, global warming means "a global warming trend" . It does't mean what it does to the general public, which is something more akin to "a warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which will continue and eventually lead to catastrophe".

If you read the paper you mention above, you'll see it contains no references to CO2, anthropogenic or otherwise.


By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 1:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
> If you read the paper you mention above, you'll see it contains no references to CO2, anthropogenic or otherwise.

I did read it, and yes it was a look at "what if a warming trend continues" it didn't question the whys, as far as I skim read it anyway.

> More generally in chaos theory, a bifurcation is a period doubling that indicates the onset of a chaotic response. It doesn't imply the climate model has two solutions, neither of which can be chosen.

Indeed, my statement, was completely wrong. But never the less, the general idea of it being very difficult to predict anything about the climate after that becomes very difficult because of the bifurcation was sorta correct, no?

What was coming to mind was graphs like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chaosorderchaos...

The bits where the line splits apart is where the bifurcation occurs, which indicates, as you say, a period doubling. When tends to chaos (though not always and kind of depends how you define chaos).


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 1:10:41 PM , Rating: 3
> If you read the paper you mention above, you'll see it contains no references to CO2, anthropogenic or otherwise.

I'd just like to comment on this again. This is a discussion in a mathematical sense of what happens to prediction of the global climate if there is a general trend of warming, why would there be any references to CO2? It's not a chemist or geographers papers as in trying to determine a cause of a global warming. It's a straight mathematical discussion, with an assumption clearly started at the start and then an attempt to try and see what that means, it's all about numbers and models not chemicals and natural/human influences.

Reading through this stuff has reminded me what I like applied mathematicians more than theoretical physicists, they're still all about the numbers, not the words. (Once the problems and assumptions have been clearly stated).

I find it worrying because you see a paper about global warming, and it doesn't mention CO2 or human influence anywhere, you then imply that it backs up your argument that any global warming has nothing to do with CO2 or human influence.


By onelittleindian on 8/15/2007 1:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it worrying because you see a paper about global warming, and it doesn't mention CO2 or human influence anywhere, you then imply that it backs up your argument that any global warming has nothing to do with CO2 or human influence.
I can't believe you typed this with a straight face. He was implying nothing of the sort, it was an obvious rebuttal to your ridiculous post that Dr. Tnonis believes in CO2-based climate change simply because he wrote a paper with the phrase "global warming" in it.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
:D

This is what I said:

> "Given that Dr. Anastasios Tsonis has one of his articles...entitled "Is global warming injecting randomness into the climate", he's probabily not fundamentally opposed to the idea of global warming"

This is what he said:

> "If you read the paper you mention above, you'll see it contains no references to CO2, anthropogenic or otherwise."

Who was the first to mention CO2? It certainly wasn't me, get your facts straight rather than just plain mis-representing me and doing exactly what you claim I'm doing.


By onelittleindian on 8/15/2007 2:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to quote the paragraph above that one, which clearly states his reasons for the CO2 reference:
quote:
To Dr. Tnonis, global warming means "a global warming trend" . It does't mean what it does to the general public, which is something more akin to "a warming trend caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which will continue and eventually lead to catastrophe".
Obviously Tsonis isn't "fundamentally opposed" to the earth getting warmer (the whole point of his latest paper is to explain that by ocean currents, remember?).

But you were trying to make it sound like he believed in human-causeed warming from greenhouse gases. You were wrong, and you got called on it.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 2:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
No, I really wasn't trying to make it sound like that at all. If you misinterpreted what I said, fair enough, I apologize for not making it clear enough.

If I was trying to:

> make it sound like he believed in human-causeed warming from greenhouse gases.

I would not type things like:

> why would there be any references to CO2? It's not a chemist or geographers papers as in trying to determine a cause of a global warming. It's a straight mathematical discussion, with an assumption clearly started at the start and then an attempt to try and see what that means, it's all about numbers and models not chemicals and natural/human influences.


By onelittleindian on 8/15/2007 2:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so what WERE you trying to say? If you really intended nothing more to than let us know Tsonis believes the earth did warm some, then you were simply making a redundant, blatantly obvious non sequitur that overlooks the entire point of this article, has no relevance to the post you replied to, and doesn't advance, support, or even counter any of the arguments you or anyone else in the thread made.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/2007 2:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
Let's put this argumentative thread to bed right now. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that, simply because one scientist failed to mention CO2 in one paper, that the entire theory of GHG-based warming was suddenly disproven. And I accept that Zurtex was not trying to suggest that Dr. Tsonis is a supporter of human-induced global warming.


By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 3:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was just replying to onelittleindian but I think I'll let this die of death.

I really don't have much of an opinion on whether or not the theory of GHG-based warming is true or not. I just get annoyed when people skew things horribly out of proportion. Reading back on your other posts, I see you've not done this as much as I assumed. But here in England, it's pretty widely accepted by the government (whatever the political party) that GHGs are a problem and they need to be tackled, so I do find it odd to meet someone who is willing to so strongly argue the opposite.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Kuroyama on 8/15/2007 2:03:28 AM , Rating: 5
Regarding post 2035 stuff, my reading of the paper is that they used the SRESA1B model to predict upcoming changes in the 4 variables they measure, and then checked whether an "event" would occur. However, without knowing what the paradigm shift will be then I do not believe they can say reliably say anything after 2035. I would conjecture that they plot the highest probability paradigm shift, but that due to the inherent uncertainty at this phase transition of sorts, I think any subsequent predictions should not be taken very seriously.

As for what the authors are doing in this paper, the concluding remarks (i.e. CO2 stuff) were not the reason this was published; the purpose was to demonstrate that the network approach to complex systems can be used for something as complex as climate systems.

Anyways, although the authors state in the conclusions that this suggests the 1970's climate change event need not have been "due to greenhouse gases overcoming shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols", it appears that they identify only a means of identifying when a sudden change will occur, and don't really delve into whether some external event such as greenhouse gases was not in fact the cause of the synchronization and coupling that occurs before the climate change.

To revert to the stock market analogy, the popping of a bubble is not caused by some arbitrary chaotic event, but is typically due to excess optimism leading to extreme valuations, which in turn causes high synchronization and coupling when humans follow a herd mentality. Can the methods of this paper be used to show that stock market "events" are explainable without resorting to using say the "herd mentality" explanation of human behavior? Not really, this is only identifying a sign of when the "events" will occur and says little to nothing about the causes.

Well, I find this all interesting enough that I'll try reading through the longer papers tomorrow. The 1910 vs 2035 line in the conclusions seem to suggest the authors believe they have said more than I am giving them credit for, although I don't yet see how their implicit suggestion is possible.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By rsmech on 8/16/2007 1:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it appears that they identify only a means of identifying when a sudden change will occur, and don't really delve into whether some external event such as greenhouse gases was not in fact the cause of the synchronization and coupling that occurs before the climate change


I'm not as smart in this area as those of you posting so correct me if I'm wrong. If the model shows the earlier warming trends based of ocean currents and other processes of nature. How can the model predict anything but natural events? How can the model even account for man made gases, chemicals, or behavior. If the model doesn't include or predict the variable of such things how can they be a factor in the results? I'm just a laymen & may not be understanding your point here.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Kuroyama on 8/16/2007 10:25:47 AM , Rating: 3
The model in this paper takes observations of 4 variables and says that when they move in tandem more and more closely then there is likely to be a sudden change in climate. However, it could be that the 4 variables are moving in tandem because of human actions, for instance if temperatures were increasing more rapidly due to human caused global warming then the increase in temperatures might cause similar changes in each of the 4 variables. In another of the author's papers he constructs a model studying how increasing temperatures cause El Nino but few La Nina; so increasing temperatures (whether human caused or otherwise) can cause similar effects in the other variables. Masher points out that identifying a possible natural cause of recent sudden climate shifts weakens the pro-GW claims, but that is really the only extent to which these results have pro/anti-GW implications.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By rsmech on 8/16/2007 4:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I'm missing the point or can't explain my question right.
How does or did the model predict or explain any legislation passed in the US or any other counties or any economical activities from the industrial revolution to present. How does the model know that human intervention cleaned things up from the industrial revolution, why did the model predict certain legislation would be passed or certain leaders would step up to lower the rising temperatures that are man made. My point is that it didn't. Am I misunderstanding this or what? The model may take limited human input into account, but a small variable. Human interaction & reaction in past & future would seem just as complex as the weather itself. It would seem to me that this model is based mostly off of natural events & doesn't seem to give any credit to HUMAN induced GW. So because of this fact is this study less credible?


By Kuroyama on 8/16/2007 4:48:12 PM , Rating: 3
And maybe I'm not answering clearly (people rarely accuse their professor of being too clear!). Anyways, the model shows that if we only look at 4 variables then this seems sufficient to explain sudden climate shifts. What causes these 4 variables to have the values they have is a different issue, and it may (or may not) be that human activity influences them sufficiently to effect the outcome of this model. That would be the subject for a different paper.

For instance, I might come up with a model which predicts that a stock market crash is coming soon when a collection of 4 stocks (say GE, Exxon-Mobile, Microsoft and Citibank) behave in an increasingly similar fashion. Such a model might do an excellent job at predicting crashes, even though it does not directly take into account interest rates, oil prices, real estate valuations, etc. However, it indirectly takes these into account because interest rates and such will influence the prices of the 4 stocks and thus may increase or decrease their tendency to behave similarly.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By geddarkstorm on 8/15/2007 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Errr, actually, one minor point. Causation, or coupling, means you are correlated, no matter what. If the variance and mean of datum x determines the variance and mean of datum Y, that's causation/coupling. Correlation is an extremely weak term. For instance, it's a true statistical correlation that when it rains in Washington State, alligators are seen more often on Floridan golf courses. Now, does in Washington in any way determine if alligators are out on golf courses in Florida? No. But the time and season when both events are likely to occur are the same, which is a correlation.

In short, Correlation is the weakest statistical term there is. Nothing is weaker than correlation--as a correlation can be utterly false and unrelated yet still be statistically real. Causation/coupling, on the other hand, is what is interesting to scientists, as it means that one variable has a direct affect on the other variable; and how they are linked is all important to science.

To your example, speed and fuel efficiency can be correlated, but there may be no clear causation.


By Kuroyama on 8/15/2007 4:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
No, you are wrong and Dr Tsonis says this himself in the second sentence of paragraph 6. In his language synchronization=correlation and coupling=what you incorrectly call "correlated".

More precisely, in a statistics class you should learn that the correlation coefficient measures only a linear relation between two variables. For instance, on problem 4.11 in David Moore's book "The Basic Practice of Statistics" (4th edition) he gives fuel economy vs. speed data for a car and asks the student to use a scatterplot to see that there is a definite association, and then calculate correlation to find that the correlation is zero. This phenomenon occurs here because when MPG is on the y-axis and speed is on the x-axis then you end up with a figure somewhat resembling an upside-down parabola, i.e. a non-linear relation.

Furthermore, coupling and causation are not the same either. If two things are coupled then the behavior of one can be used to predict the behavior of the other, but it could easily be the case that an outside influence was causing the behavior of both variables simultaneously.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Kuroyama on 8/15/2007 4:59:25 PM , Rating: 3
OK, last comment by me. I'm reporting back after having read 3 other of Dr Tsonis' papers (although they mostly turned out to be not relevant to this topic), and re-read the paper relevant to this blog. Here's what I learned:

Summary first: This model suggests that abrupt changes in climate will occur naturally. It does not however claim that the sudden changes were not brought about by human actions. Likewise, even if global warming is occurring, the model predicts eras of cooling or decreased warming to occur (so the 1970's "cooling" doesn't prove anything). Conversely, even if the warming is anthropogenic we should also expect sudden climate changes (so the post-70's sudden jump in temperatures need not prove anything).

Now, a few details:

- Rovemelt is correct and Masher was incorrect in interpreting the figures. Figure 3 is a hypothetical run based on using 1860 pre-industrial figures, i.e. it shows the global temperature anomaly in the absence of CO2 fluctuations. Figure 4 is the prediction for our future and shows how temperatures will deviate from a 2 degree per century increase in temperatures, i.e. it predicts that in 2100 the temperature will be about 1.95 degrees Celsius hotter than now.

- Good news for skeptics: Figure 4 suggests that the increase in temperatures will soon lessen.

- Bad news for skeptics: Figure 4 suggests that after 2035 there will be a sudden spike in temperatures of nearly 0.5 degrees C over only about 10 years.

- Good news for skeptics: Any predictions after 2035 seem suspect here, because the nature of the "event" at 2035 is such that any slight deviation in inputs could easily cause a large variation in how the event occurs.

- Bad news for skeptics: This paper suggests that the stable temperatures and occasional temperature rises/drops from 1940 to mid 1970's is a natural phenomenon, i.e. even if global warming advocates are 100% correct then such a period would still be expected to occur occasionally.

- Good news for skeptics: I previously questioned the 1910 vs 2035 line in the conclusion of this paper. On more careful reading I understand the authors suggestion. The future predictions here are based on an assumption of a gradual increase in CO2 levels. And yet, at 2035 this theory predicts a drastic increase in temperatures similar to that in 1910. Since the 1910 increase has been attributed by some as being due to the sudden increase in CO2 resulting from the Industrial revolution, and yet the 2035 jump requires no such assumption, this indicates a distinct possibility that the 1910 increase had nothing to do with sudden post-Industrial Revolution increases in CO2.

All in all I would say that, minus the misinterpretation of a few figures, this paper increases the case of those skeptical to the hypothesis that warming is caused by human actions, as Masher contended. However, it does suggest that skeptics should stop suggesting that the 1970's era "cooling" in any way contradicts the hypothesis of man-made warming.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By porkpie on 8/15/2007 6:36:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Bad news for skeptics: Figure 4 suggests that after 2035 there will be a sudden spike in temperatures of nearly 0.5 degrees C
How is this "bad news for skeptics? The "spike" in question has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. It's due entirely to a change in ocean currents.

quote:
However, it does suggest that skeptics should stop suggesting that the 1970's era "cooling" in any way contradicts the hypothesis of man-made warming
Let me quote from the paper itself:

quote:
The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols... However [the model] suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate
Hard to misinterpet that. The authors are saying the popular explanation for the warming from 1970s to today is NOT due to greenhouse gases.


By Kuroyama on 8/15/2007 7:09:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
How is this "bad news for skeptics?

Because if you think it's hard to get your voice heard now, it will become near impossible if temperatures go up 0.5 degrees in under 10 years. How many people will believe it's just a coincidence? (even if it is in fact just that)

quote:
Hard to misinterpet that.

Apparently it is easy to misinterpret what I wrote, because my claim was only that their model shows that cooling phenomenon like that in the 1970's would occur EVEN IF man-made global warming is occurring.

In fact, let me quote the next sentence from my post itself: "even if the warming is anthropogenic we should also expect sudden climate changes, so the post-70's sudden jump in temperatures need not prove anything". (in reference to using the jump in temperatures as "proof" of man-made warming)

Anyways, the "alternative hypothesis" in question here is a statement that this paper shows that an alternative explanation is plausible; there is no "proof" that the alternative explanation is correct, as Masher himself agrees to in one of his posts here.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Rovemelt on 8/14/2007 11:04:16 PM , Rating: 3
I've been browsing through Tsonis website (where the authors PDF's are posted.) Many of the publications posted there cover El Nino and it's relationship to global warming. I don't see any challenges to our understanding that global warming is in part due to human activity. Tsonis' trying to predict the fluctuations which may happen irrespective of warming due to a buildup of CO2.

In the paper Masher links, there is a prediction for the year 2000 to 2100 in Figure 4c where temperature fluctuations are predicted. However, as clearly stated in the text, that data is missing the 2deg/Century trend merely to highlight the oscillations (which would otherwise be obfuscated by the overall warming.)


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Kuroyama on 8/14/2007 11:19:14 PM , Rating: 4
The paper says that regardless of the underlying trend (global warming, cooling, or whatever) or causes (anthropogenic or man-made) that over some short term (seems like every 30 years or so) there will be a sudden climate change. The skeptic would interpret this as saying that all our efforts at modeling current climate changes are inevitably going to prove fruitless and hence a waste of money. However, I disagree because just as in my stock market analogy above, even though the stock market does go through phases of sudden dramatic changes in valuations, there are still underlying economic ideas that explain the general trends in stock market behavior, and it is even possible to roughly explain the reasons why the coupling caused the change in behavior in the stock market.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/2007 10:53:47 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not sure why you were downrated, as you raise an excellent point. Taken by itself, the presence of sudden climate shifts does not invalidate the CO2-global warming link.

However, the issue is a bit deeper. So far, the strongest evidence to support CO2's role has been primarily negative in nature, e.g. the elimination of other potential factors. Put simply, the best evidence for the CO2 link is research that has eliminated other likely culprits to explain the warming.

So a theory like this that neatly explains the largest warming event of the past century, it indirectly weakens one of the best arguments for CO2-based climate change.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 1:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but as long as you are aware there is a strong difference between "explains" and "proves". The theory would have to be tested against much more data and shown to see if it accurately predicts future events before it would be generally accepted as a good scientific theory.

One of the famous problems introduces to maths students during early years of university is dividing a circle in to regions chords: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CircleDivisionbyChord...

The question is what is the maximum number of regions generated by n number of chords, it starts:

n=0, regions=1
n=1, regions=2
n=2, regions=4
n=3, regions=8
n=4, regions=16

Then of course, from this data alone, the students are then asked how many regions will there be for n=5 and most people immediately think 32, because 2^n accuractly fits with everything so far and so far fits the pattern perfectly.

As it goes, for n=5, the maximum number of regions is 31. And as you can see from the link, the actual formulae is 1/24(n^4 + 6n^3 + 23n^2 - 18n + 24).

2^n explains from n=0 to n=4, but that doesn't prove that the formulae is 2^n.


By onelittleindian on 8/15/2007 1:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The theory would have to be tested against much more data and shown to see if it accurately predicts future events before it would be generally accepted as a good scientific theory.
Too bad we don't the theory of global warming to the same standard eh? It's never been able to accurately predict future events. Every time a new year's data comes out, they just "revise" the models to bring them back in line.


By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 1:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
I was just trying to show a difference between explain a prove. I don't care too much for supporting is attacking a theory I have no real education in.


By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 1:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
p.s, the problem I was thinking of and the link I gave are ever so slight different, there's a different of 1 in the n value.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By dever on 8/15/2007 3:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dr Tsonis has been a global warming skeptic, so he is certainly not an impartial observer
I was not aware that critical thinking and impartiality were at odds.


By BMFPitt on 8/15/2007 3:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was not aware that critical thinking and impartiality were at odds.
Depends on whether or not you're a professional skeptic.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By Kuroyama on 8/15/2007 4:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you did not read the next few sentences? My only meaning is that Dr Tsonis already has a pre-existing opinion that has been voiced already (as do I), and so it is necessary to be more careful when judging his work.

Now, after having read 4 of Dr Tsonis papers, I can safely say that his works appears to involve both clear critical thinking and is presented in an impartial manner. In fact, all of his papers directly state that from the mid-1970's there has been a global warming trend; he seems to always slip in the word "anthropogenic", but merely as an aside.


RE: Predicting the past does not a theory make
By porkpie on 8/15/2007 6:39:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Dr Tsonis already has a pre-existing opinion...and so it is necessary to be more careful when judging his work.
Too humorous for words. You don't have any problem quoting scientists whose "pre-existing opinion" is that global warming exists. Its only the skeptics that you're suspicious of.


By Kuroyama on 8/15/2007 9:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Please, let me know what scientist I have quoted? To the best of my memory I have never quoted any scientists on Dailytech. Or are you pre-judging me and assuming that since I have a pre-existing opinion that you don't like then I must have done such a thing?

In fact, I have no doubts that if I were to write a refereed research letter to a journal and suggest that man-made climate change is occurring, you would dismiss the result as certainly wrong without even looking at my paper. I at least read through 4 of Dr Tsonis' papers, and in the end agreed with Masher's opinion (and I quote): "this paper increases the case of those skeptical to the hypothesis that warming is caused by human actions"

Perhaps it was inappropriate to start with a feeling of skepticism, but I judged the paper fairly and that is the main thing that matters. That is more than 99% of the people on either side of this debate can say.


By TheGreek on 8/16/2007 1:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its only the skeptics that you're suspicious of.

Since when is being the total opposite showing any objectivity?


By Procurion on 8/16/2007 12:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
As I've commented before, this is an exercise. There just isn't enough data over a long enough period of time to make anything resembling even an educated guess on our immediate future. In 50 years, one or the other camps is going to say "see, I told you so!". The problem with bifurcations is that once one occurs the subsequent idividual paths must be examined and those will also have bifurcations(read:variables). Unfortunately, math can get people in the neighborhood but 95% of the time in new situations math is best as hindsight. Prediction/hypothesis then adjustment to fit the actual. Math is actually an extremely inaccurate predictor when it's used to acquire information-it is best used to demonstrate a known for understanding how something functions.


Studies and studies and studies
By Zurtex on 8/14/2007 10:45:54 PM , Rating: 4
I like how in the link you give yourself:

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540...

Usefully written entirely in German, the comments on the page (which I thought might be an English version of the article) point to another study, discounting the effect that the Sun has on the climate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Which makes the statement:

"The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures."

I think rather than quoting random studied and new mathematical theories, it might actually be worth reporting those which significance, not just some Proffessors earning a living by analysing old data and making papers on it which are then seemingly sold. But rather BIG studies, with lots of experts, years and years of detailed evidence. Like big governmental studies, that the EU does or what ever. It just seems like you could find a study to say anything, it doesn't make it any more valid unless the theory had held up to scientific scrutiny, rather than political scrutiny...

Ugh... whatever, this feels just the time this same blog reported how safe Nuclear power was, in regards to a Japanse plant. The blog said how nuclear power had never killed a single person. Yet that same plant was being heavily scrutinized by the Japanese government because workers had died there years before hand due to an accident and little seemed to be done about it (links to back-up):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6903...

"In 1999 two workers were killed and hundreds of homes had to be evacuated after an uncontrolled nuclear reaction took place at the Tokaimura plant north of Tokyo."

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8064

"The western world's nuclear safety record remains unbroken. Over five decades and thousands of reactor-years later, not one person has ever been harmed by commercial power generation. "

Please don't get geographically facetious on me, Japan is always considered to be part of 'the western world' and was the subject of the article. I think anything Michael Asher wrote from then on should have been immediately suspect.




By Kuroyama on 8/14/2007 10:58:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Japan is always considered to be part of 'the western world' and was the subject of the article

A funny aside, but during the Apartheid era when South Africa wanted to do business with Japan they had the little problem of race, and got around it by declaring Japanese to be "honorary white people".


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/2007 12:05:20 AM , Rating: 3
> "The blog said how nuclear power had never killed a single person. Yet that same plant was being heavily scrutinized by the Japanese government because workers had died there years before hand..

You have misread your link. The accident to which you refer did not occur at the "same plant". In fact, it didn't occur at a nuclear power plant at all-- it did so at a fuel processing factory in Tokaimura. My original statement was correct. Western nuclear power plants have never killed a single person, whether or not you include Japan.

> it might actually be worth reporting...BIG studies, with lots of experts, years and years of detailed evidence...

Interesting you say this, but have no problem quoting the Lockwood paper as fact, based on a study hurriedly done by two researchers in a few weeks time, and one already contradicted by the recent Camp/Tung paper, the work of Yu, Shaviv, and most especially a decade of research by Svensmark's team at the Danish National Space Centre.


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 12:27:11 AM , Rating: 1
... I wasn't quoting it as "fact", that was the point!

I was making the point that you can pick studies out of the air to show anything, if you don't but them in context or relevance.

You're right, I did get the 2 places mixed up. I didn#'t misread the quote as such, I seemingly misunderstood the quote if you are correct:

"In 1999 two workers were killed and hundreds of homes had to be evacuated after an uncontrolled nuclear reaction took place at the Tokaimura plant north of Tokyo."

I just assumed plant meant power plant. Clearly not, I'm reading a bit in to it all, Uranium reprocessing, not part of the "electricity production fuel cycle". So I see your quote has been somewhat carefully worded. Well, well done I guess.


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 12:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
p.s, sorry for my terrible typos, it's 5:30 AM here, 1 read over really isn't enough.


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/2007 1:09:18 AM , Rating: 3
> "You're right, I did get the 2 places mixed up. I didn#'t misread the quote as such, I seemingly misunderstood the quote..."

Don't feel bad; the phrasing in the BBC article is indeed misleading. Had I not known what the Tokaimura factory was prior to reading it, I would have been taken in as well.


By Kuroyama on 8/15/2007 2:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the phrasing in the BBC article is indeed misleading

As you well know, coverage of the nuclear event in Japan after this latest earthquake was drastically misleading. While I complained about you prematurely writing happy things about it, the news reporters had all the information in front of themselves days after the quake and were still writing article with headlines that stretched the truth to unimaginable lengths. Sensationalism sells, but that was ridiculous given that not one article I read actually mentioned any real danger to speak of in the text, and yet still "credible news sources" were full of frightening headlines.


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By rsmech on 8/16/2007 2:22:28 AM , Rating: 1
From earlier posts of yours
quote:
I just get annoyed when people skew things horribly out of proportion.

quote:
I just assumed plant meant power plant. Clearly not, I'm reading a bit in to it all,

quote:
I think anything Michael Asher wrote from then on should have been immediately suspect.


I think anything Zurtex writes from now on should be immediately suspect.

I'm not following you on your posts.
1. Either you lean towards human activity being the main factor or you don't. From your posts I feel you lean towards human activity. Don't be ashamed or act as a wolf in sheeps clothing by trying to debunk but state you don't support either side.

2. Or for as smart as you seem you really can't make up your mind. There is nothing wrong with choosing sides, you can always change if persuaded by evidence later. But to sound like you are above all & personally attack others for something you personally do within your own arguments is silly.

Theres no need to reply to this post, it's not an argument. I enjoy reading posts debating a point yours included but sound arguments don't float with personal attacks.


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By Zurtex on 8/15/2007 12:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
Reading about nuclear accidents now, facinating subject, you say that:

" not one person has ever been harmed by commercial power generation "

Arguably this accident may have killed 1 person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_acc...

'and a government report concluded that "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident... is approximately one."'

:-P


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By Spivonious on 8/15/2007 10:09:54 AM , Rating: 3
The funny thing about Wikipedia is that I can go in right now and change that line to 500000 if I wanted to. Wikipedia is not a good source material.


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By TomZ on 8/15/2007 11:38:16 AM , Rating: 3
True, but an error is also pretty likely to be quickly corrected, or your changes undone, by someone knowledgeable on the subject.


RE: Studies and studies and studies
By Ringold on 8/15/2007 5:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
I've tried to fix simple simple spelling and grammatical errors before and ran in to or seen other people running in to edit-zealots rolling back changes, either out of pride, a sense of turf, I dont know, but more often then not, political or religious (same thing?) ideological differences. I try not to even look at the "talk back" pages or whatever any more; just depressing.


By therealnickdanger on 8/16/2007 1:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
political or religious (same thing?)

Sadly... yes. If you don't have a God to worship, all you have left is people. :P


History is about to repeat itself right here.
By TheGreek on 8/15/2007 4:57:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt" --Washington Post headline, November 2, 1922.


Think about how many other people could base their argument with news headlines from 85 years ago. Those were the rantings of the extremists of their day. No notice or scientific investigation of how many scientists of that day held that viewpoint, all that's necessary for our friendly neighborhood extremist is that the claim was ever made by anyone. Prove one person of the opposing argument wrong proves them all wrong? MAsher logic at its finest.

And what are the odds that MAsher's theory du jour won't be more of the same? Like Mechanics Illustrated with articles each month that if even one followed through would end 90% of the worlds problems or Men's Health monthly Ultimate Workout some body simply tried their best to sell print while some other guy says whatever it takes to get noticed for self gratfication (not that ever happens here.) You think if it doesn't pan out as it appears here in print he will bother to set the record straight? I wouldn't bet on it.

How many real scientists, who are respected by their peers side with global warming? How many side with MAsher? This isn't mob mentality, which has always been the tool that the local extremist conveniently uses to dismiss his opposition, these are educated and objective people all over the world, many without the US agenda. Well, how about it? Where's the beef? Oh sorry, that would require MAsher to behave objectively. Me silly. I mean for a minute there I thought he might point out some bad science that was funded by the API, not that that ever happens, right? And certainly it would be posted here as a matter of educating the people about what's really happening. Yeah, right.

And you know what? If the global warming crowd is wrong the worst that can happen is a decrease in CO. Now wouldn't that be just awful for life on this planet? Now suppose MAsher is wrong. What's the worst that can happen?

Let's watch once again as MAsher sets out to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how wrong the old saying is:
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".




RE: History is about to repeat itself right here.
By Ringold on 8/15/2007 6:04:19 PM , Rating: 3
I'll skip the entire first two paragraphs being largely rhetorical in nature, but move right to this:

quote:
I mean for a minute there I thought he might point out some bad science that was funded by the API, not that that ever happens, right?


I'm not going to get in to a debate over the scientific merits, but lets put it this way. Tens of billions have been raining out of the sky on a field that was barely funded two decades ago, it's supported by the masses of people world-wide, it's strongly tied to political agenda's (which could be lucky circumstance), and it's supported by one of the post-industrial worlds largest international failures, the United Nations. Oh, and many of its political backers are those who put a fear in to me when I was knee high to a grasshopper that beyond all doubt acid rain would destroy about everything green on Earth (and yet here I am in the green swamp of Florida).

If it ends up that they're right, despite all of those demerits which if Global Warming were a stock would cause every maverick trader to ruthlessly sell it short as a plain-as-daylight contrarian play, then I for one will be shocked and admit the broken clock is right twice a day.

quote:
And you know what? If the global warming crowd is wrong the worst that can happen is a decrease in CO. Now wouldn't that be just awful for life on this planet? Now suppose MAsher is wrong. What's the worst that can happen?


A common, but flawed, way to look at costs.
First off, studies have been done that suggest the worst-case IPCC scenario would lead to a reduction in 2200's GDP by 14%, leaving us at $81,000 (versus $7800 today).

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119291.html

Second, it's not just that if action is taken and GW turns out to be a fraud that all that happens is harmless drop in CO2. Technologies thought to be too dirty or inefficient would be forsaken for less economically efficient ones, for example. Taxes would have to be higher to fund ultimately useless anti-GW projects. Costs would be higher as energy gets squeezed. The impacts would ripple through the economy. Sure, some of those would materialize as lower paychecks to millionaires on Wall Street, but it would also mean slower industrialization of the third world -- which means people would continue to live in poverty longer than they'd of needed to, a sacrifice made upon the alter of Global Warming.

So yes, CO2 levels may drop, but it wouldn't be without significant cost to the entire planet (thanks to our global economy) and to the human condition (slowing the rise of the third world).

Both the "GW exists but we do nothing" and "GW doesn't exist and we do try something" columns have costs -- and it's impossible to know at this point which would be larger, since it's hard to model all the ways in which the CO2 limiting measures may ripple through the economy.

Given that either way the world ends up better off in the future than it is today, and that maintaining the status quo with no expensive changes is the quickest way to expand prosperity in the short run and under normal conditions, I hold the "wait and see" position.

Oh -- and the common flaw I was referring to is the idea of opportunity costs. Everything has costs, and when we talk about changing anything on a macroeconomic level, everything has huge costs.


By TheGreek on 8/16/2007 2:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not going to get in to a debate over the scientific merits

I didn't ask for debate, I asked for solid percentages from the head extremist. No response, what's there to debate?

quote:
it's supported by one of the post-industrial worlds largest international failures, the United Nations

Illogical. Thinking like that one would go against everything GWB does based just on his batting average.

quote:
many of its political backers are those who put a fear in to me when I was knee high to a grasshopper that beyond all doubt acid rain would destroy about everything green on Earth (and yet here I am in the green swamp of Florida).

So you managed to point out some kooks just like MAsher. I'm doing the same thing here. Weren't there scientists who worked for the tobacco institute that could scientifically prove it was safe? Weren't there idiots that proved MTBE was safe when it clearly wasn't? (Of course no lobbying effort on that last one, right?)

quote:
A common, but flawed, way to look at costs.

Some people will always measure costs only by their wallet. What are the long term benefits of having an atmosphere with less CO2?

quote:
Technologies thought to be too dirty or inefficient would be forsaken for less economically efficient ones, for example

A common irrational way of thinking. More efficiency means better use of resources, ie lower costs. You could pay less for a car today that has a carb instead of fuel injection. Bad for you in the long haul, bad for everyone else all the time. Glad it's not longer a decision the ignorant have to make. Across the board substantial efficiency increases could lower demand. Suppose everyone in the country put an ultra-high efficiency furnance or boiler in their homes, what's the end result? One step closer to energy independence? Everyone I convinced to replace their furnace now, as a financial investment, has been glowing every since, not complaining about the up front costs.

quote:
but it would also mean slower industrialization of the third world -- which means people would continue to live in poverty longer than they'd of needed to, a sacrifice made upon the alter of Global Warming.

You mean there would be no new industries based on increasing efficiency and looking for better ways to do the same old thing? Since when was change not an opportunity? Yes of course, not for those that despise change and can't adapt, that requires work. When CAFE standards were created much of the same nonsense was said then. What happened since? 32 valve V-8s, 500hp V-10s, Hummers, Corvettes that get like 30mpg on the highway. So much for unsubstantiated speculation. Who's really blowing smoke here?


RE: History is about to repeat itself right here.
By rsmech on 8/16/2007 2:44:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure


According to your views the proper saying should be.
A ton of other peoples money is worth a pound of cure.

But don't worry, it will take awhile but I'm in the service industry & I'll be taking your money because right now I am one of the other people.


RE: History is about to repeat itself right here.
By TheGreek on 8/16/2007 2:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to your views the proper saying should be.

Incorrect, my money is also in the equation.


RE: History is about to repeat itself right here.
By rsmech on 8/16/2007 4:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Incorrect, my money is also in the equation.


Please ask before you add mine into your equation.


RE: History is about to repeat itself right here.
By TheGreek on 8/17/2007 4:35:25 PM , Rating: 1
Just like myopic Ringold, you fail to see any economic upside, even after I proved him wrong.

It's tough bing stagnant.


RE: History is about to repeat itself right here.
By rsmech on 8/18/2007 12:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
Of course there is an upside, doesn't someone always gain from crisis or disaster? What I am saying is that just because you are so easily convinced of disaster doesn't mean I'm running off the cliff with you. If you believe it there is nothing stopping you from giving. It's like those who say taxes are too low & we need to pay more to fix what they believe to be a crisis. How many of those people actually pay more than what is owed. Their principals are so weak that they won't give more for what they believe until they can make everyone else. I hear so many bleeding heart liberal rich saying they didn't get taxed enough, well give more the only thing stopping them is hypocrisy.


RE: History is about to repeat itself right here.
By TheGreek on 8/23/2007 10:09:11 AM , Rating: 2
You're free to follow the pro-corporate agenda right off the cliff if you so desire, just as you're free to ignore the positives I listed. But your analogy is weak. I never hear anyone say they want to pay more tax. They can fix that by writing a check if its such a big deal. If you are wrong there's a lot more at stake than the green in your wallet, if your kind could ever see passed that.

quote:
bleeding heart liberal rich

Oh, labeling and party bigotry, how convenient and such a scientific argument as well. Good one.


By rsmech on 8/24/2007 12:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
just as you're free to ignore the positives I listed.


I've been reading some of your posts. I must have missed anything positive you have said.

quote:
If you are wrong there's a lot more at stake than the green in your wallet, if your kind could ever see passed that.


As far as I'm concerned it's a BIG IF. If your so bright what is the perfect climate for this planet? Should it be cooler or warmer? Or do you believe that it's perfect now? And if so how did we survive with anything different than we have now? I'm sorry for so many questions. From your other post I don't expect an answer, just a tag line or two.


By rsmech on 8/24/2007 12:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
Like I said someone always makes money off of a crisis.

How much has the rockstar of GW (Al Gore) made off of it. Why does a company he's on the board of have such a bad record from green peace. (Apple) Is anyone getting rich off of carbon credits or is it a non-profit. Take off the blinders. Go ahead I'm ready for your emotional response.


Interesting...
By therealnickdanger on 8/14/2007 4:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I'm glad that most of your recent blogs pertain to this topic. I won't pretend to understand every facet of "climate change", but it would seem that more often than not, my own brand of common sense is ever justified by nature's own cyclical behavior.

That being said, I hope you recently got your flamesuit serviced.




RE: Interesting...
By Moishe on 8/14/2007 4:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think we should all pitch in and buy Masher an asbestos lined 3 piece tux :)


RE: Interesting...
By TheGreek on 8/16/2007 2:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think we should all pitch in and buy Masher an asbestos lined 3 piece tux :)

What did asbestos ever do to you? And question 2, would he inhale?


RE: Interesting...
By JackBeQuick on 8/14/2007 4:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
You should have seen what they were saying over at Slashdot (that's where I hail from). Granted, whoever posted the story didn't take any of Masher's stuff in context.


Nice
By JackBeQuick on 8/14/2007 3:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Digging the theory. It's nice that it can attribute all of the fluctuations but are there more than 3 data points we can test it on?




RE: Nice
By porkpie on 8/15/2007 7:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
3 data points isnt much, but its a lot better than zero data points for global warming. It can't explain any of the past changes, and every time its predictions for future warming turn out to be off, the GCM models have to be revised yet again.


Great Interview
By cartographer on 8/14/2007 5:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Masher, I caught your guest spot on the G. Gordon Liddy show yesterday. Great job and keep up the good work!




RE: Great Interview
By porkpie on 8/15/2007 6:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
Masher was on the G-Man's show?


Last paragraph is the big one
By greenchasch on 8/15/2007 10:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
Seems no one has saw fit to comment on the last paragraph of the story. The Meteorological Institute of Belgium says CO2's effects are highly overrated? That's big news!




By onelittleindian on 8/15/2007 11:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
No the best part is the FIRST paragraph. Not only does it show the media is forever trying to scare us, but it proves the Arctic has been melting for a long, long time.


Nature, not man
By Screwballl on 8/15/2007 12:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
The earth has gone through natural cooling and heating periods on its own so this is not mans doing, we have had maybe 0.00000001% of an impact on this environment...

Remember the 50s where they were spouting off about global cooling

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek...




RE: Nature, not man
By otispunkmeyer on 8/16/2007 4:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
i dont believe a single word about "man made CO2" causing warming.

im not saying its not CO2, im saying i dont believe its just our contribution.

theres billions of £ and a whole industry with jobs, governmental positions, state taxes, job titles like envrionmental officers etc... it all exists on the pretence that man made CO2 is the be all and end all culprit.

its heavily intertwined with politics and party agendas and knowing governments capacity to lie and spin through their teeth i am inclined to believe none of it. basically CO2 global warming like all the other possible reasons is a theory...a theory based on assumptions. nothing is 100% proven.

if the theory of man made CO2 is one day debunked completely...that industry will crash an burn, a few will recover by latching on to the next big theory but that will lose them any credibility they once had. I'd be willing to bet most involved in this area are simply there to make money, politcal gain and nothing else. of course they are going to fight to the death to keep the idea behind their very existance in the public mind.

what i find particularly annoying is here in europe there is all sorts of taxes and legislation aimed at reducing man made CO2... extra taxes at airports before you fly, road charging etc etc, its hitting the publics wallets some more, giving some worthless chap a job again funded by the tax payer and all the while china is pretty much offsetting any CO2 we prevent by building coal fired powerstations like they are going out of fashion.


why could this be?
By johnsonx on 8/15/2007 3:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its conclusion is that, while CO2 does have some effect, that "it can never play the decisive role attributed to it" in global warming, and that its effects have been grossly overstated.


Why has the Church of Global Warming settled so firmly on CO2 as the cause of all evil? Because nearly all human activity produces CO2. By blaming CO2, the Church of Global Warming can stick it's nose into EVERYTHING. This is of course is what they wanted all along, an excuse to guilt all of us into compliance.

That's the day I knew Global Warming was a scam, the day they settled on CO2.




RE: why could this be?
By johnsonx on 8/15/2007 3:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
to add a little more to that post...

Have you ever heard the old saying "If something appears to good to be true, then it probably isn't"? This is the same thing, sort of in reverse.... CO2 caused Global Warming is just too good (for them) to be true.

Finally, no matter how correct this new theory is (like any scientific theory it will take more data and time to confirm), it won't be embraced by the Church of GW; it doesn't fit with their agenda or goals. The Church's agenda is far more important than the facts.


interesting
By Moishe on 8/14/2007 4:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
very interesting... Reminds me of reading "A Brief History of Time" (Stephen Hawking) and how he describes the cycles of nature (everything runs in cycles). Ever since I read that I've tried to notice cycles around me and frankly it's fairly easy to see the smaller stuff. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to see larger cycles as well. After all, we are hurtling around the sun (a cycle) and something that large has got to produce variations over long periods of time...




By Zurtex on 8/14/2007 8:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Erm, mathematical models of the weather are already based on this, they aren't very accurate and don't often hold up to imperial science.

I'm a mathematician and know mathematicians are some of the worst to coming up with these kind of models. Anyway, it's a new theory, which are almost always wrong, these take time to develop and refine. Please stop trying to grasp at anything which disagrees global warming. It's just as much rhetoric as what you are trying to define the main characteristic of the global warming crowd to be.




Oceans ARE the key to climate change
By JSD on 8/15/2007 9:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
The paper you covered supports the findings on Icecap.us in the paper http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AR4_ANALYSIS_SERIE... That paper shows clearly how the PDO and AMO (and through them the NAO and ENSO) are the real determinants of the temperature trends for the US, Greenland and the arctic. It finds an r-squared correlation of 0.86! with the US annual mean temperature - more than double than of the greenhouse gases the last century. In fact the correlation of greenhouse gases with Greenland temepratures has been NEGATIVE since 1950 and for the arctic just 0.22 since the late 1800s.

Sorry guys the greenhouse theory house of cards is beginning to crumble.




Hmmm...
By flykrs1 on 8/15/2007 8:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
CO2 recently has been recognized as minorly affecting GW. Water vapor is much more effective. GW is a neverending arguement at this point. The North Pole used to be sub tropical (lots of greenery), the moon's distance from earth is constantly increasing, the earth's rotational speed is changing microscopically over time, and we are in the most stable weather period in the history of the planet (as far as studies show ;)). The Sun obviously can promote or detract warming at any moment. It's a lot to understand and there are only a dozen scientists (as of two years ago) that specialize in global climatology. As an obvious aside all these theories start with an assumption; my poor little underdeveloped brain gets a little taxed trying to follow it all.




By Christopher1 on 8/22/2007 1:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
It is time for the scientific community to admit that they were suckered by extreme environmentalists and that global warming does not exist, or does not exist to anywhere near the extent that the extremists wanted them to think.

Personally, I believed in global warming in high school....... until I looked at the records since 1910 and saw that in my area, Aberdeen Maryland....... that temperatures had actually gone DOWN since then 3-5 degrees in summer and 10 or so in winter.

When I saw that, I realized that either the records were wrong or the global warming theories were wrong...... and I'm more likely to believe the latter since I confirmed the records twice.




Huh?
By Shuxclams on 9/4/2007 6:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its inability to explain sudden climate shifts in the Earth's past, and to explain why the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are so unequally affected by warming.


Uhm, the south pole sits on land covered by very think ice, the north pole is a thin layer of ice that floats on water..... thats science for you. It's just a theory though.

SHUX




Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 8/14/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wrong again Masher
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2007 4:54:46 PM , Rating: 3
> "Figure 4 has the GLOBAL WARMING TREND REMOVED to show that their model predicts shorter-term fluctuations in SST's"

You're looking at the wrong graph. Examine Fig. 3(c)-- global temperature anomaly. You'll see the graph clearly has an endstate cooler than present-day conditions, and this run includes the assumed forcing from CO2 trends (last paragraph, pg. 3).

You're welcome to your own beliefs as to these results, but you should know my interpretation agrees with that of Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl, from whom I learned of this study.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By cartographer on 8/14/2007 5:04:33 PM , Rating: 3
Ironic that the person accusing you of poor comprehension can't read himself. Life is funnier than fiction.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Ringold on 8/14/2007 5:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's whats mind-boggling about anything that gets highly politicized. Two otherwise intelligent people read the same thing and out of ideological differences walk away with two utterly different interpretations.

Of course, only one interpretation is correct.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By arazok on 8/14/2007 6:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Two otherwise intelligent people


You give the original poster far too much credit...


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Ringold on 8/14/2007 7:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
People with perfectly functional brains can be misguided by big hearts, propaganda and blinding ideology combined with a pinch of naivety -- in this case being that simply because all the noise comes from global warming activist scientists they must therefore be the factually correct camp.

Might not be the OPs fault anyway. I was born and raised a flaming left-winger (Thanks, Mom) but was lucky enough to pull off the wool starting my senior year of high school followed by an economics major which sealed the deal. Not everybody is so lucky; I had good mentors.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Kuroyama on 8/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong again Masher
By Ringold on 8/15/2007 9:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
I can't seperate that type of right-wing person and the type of left-wing person since, to me, they sound the same, but one worships God and the other worships.. well, trees. Both expand federal powers, both actively engage in social engineering.

But they're both nice people; "love everybody" being a central part of both religions..

Anyway, I was refering to a type of person you clearly can't be since you said you think for yourself. The OP seemed to of heard something that went slightly contrary to the Holy Chuch of Global Warming's official dogma and lurched to try to counter-attack it with anything that he/she could grasp at. It's a mentality that people on both sides have the ability to express, I'll admit. I expressly stated it didn't necessarily reflect on intelligence -- or even most aspects of a persons character. However, on this particular issue, it happens to be a liberal cause celebre, and has been hijacked by far-left political movements as a shot at advocating socialist and communist agendas. (Other's have an uncanny ability to find loads of relevant quotes from the relevant people to support that) On a different issue, it would be different, but in a discussion of GW, yes, the left wing has, generally speaking, shut down its brain and begun digging trenches for a long, bloody ideological (not scientific) war.

If that weren't the case, industry wouldn't be responding by taking measures to profit from expected legislation. Why wouldn't they? Because by most accounts corporate America's executives don't buy in to GW. That means their actions are not in response to true fears of GW but an attempt to profit from the shift to the left on environmentalism (a bitter-sweet victory, no doubt, for Green Peace).

Also, if it weren't the case, then there'd be far more posts of "Oh, that was interesting!" rather than "This guy has an opinion on GW, can't be trusted!" The issue has been politicized, and stopped being a scientific discussion when left-wingers started having marches and throwing stones alongside their anti-free-trade comrades (connection?) at G8 summits.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Kuroyama on 8/15/2007 11:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
Seems you made my point for me quite well. I rest my case.

PS. Try listening to someone other than Neil Boortz sometime.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 8/14/2007 7:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. I'll explain it for you:

From the PDF:

Text under Fig. 3:

quote:
Figure 3. Same as Figure 1 but for a control run of GFDL CM2.1 model with 1860 pre-industrial conditions. See text for discussion.


What do you think pre-industrial conditions means?

quote:
Figure 3 shows information analogous to Figure 1
but for the 2nd century of the control run


Text:
quote:

The particular model we examine here is the GFDL CM2.1 coupled ocean/atmosphere model [GFDL CM2.1 development team, 2006]. The first simulation is an 1860 pre-industrial conditions 500-year control run and the second is the SRESA1B, which is a ‘‘business as usual’’ scenario with CO2 levels stabilizing at 720 ppmv at the close of the 21st century [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001]. From these model outputs we construct the same indices and their network.


This interpretation agrees with the conclusion:

quote:

However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.


Figure 3 is the second century of the CONTROL RUN simulation (1900-2000). Figure 4 was done with "business as usual", with the 2deg C rise removed from the graph (but CO2 levels from IPCC included in the data for the simulation.)

quote:

Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21st
century simulation, with the exception that the greenhouse
gases radiative trend of 2C/century in global temperature
(Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts in
behavior.


21st century...that's 2000-2100, from where the future prediction is made.

I see you all gave me a negative rating, but without reading the link itself.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Keeir on 8/14/2007 7:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I am missing something too but its seems to my reading that Figure 1 is current data aligned with a model predictions for climate change

Figure 3 is year 100-200 of

quote:
The particular model we examine here is GFDL CM2.1 coupled ocean/atmosphere model... The First similar is an 1860 pre-industrial conditions 500-year control run and the second is SRESA1B, which is a "business as usual" senario with CO2 levels stabilizing at 720 ppmv at the close of the 21st century


This is very confusing because I don't know if they started the 500 year run at 1860? 2000? 1900?. In either case I would assume pre-1860 conditions don't include forced CO2 trend of SRESA1B

Figure 4 on the other hand is SRESA1B... but it doesn't include

quote:
Figure 4 is analogous to Figure 1 but for the 21st century simulation, with the exception that the greenhouse gases radiative trend of 2C/century in global temperature (Figure 4c) is removed to better isolate internal shifts in behaviour


This seems rather against including the CO2 doubling at all if a major affect is ignored? So what does including the CO2 do?

Soooo I am left to wonder (not wishing to spend $10 dollars on the full study) what exactly the graphs are presenting...


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 8/14/2007 9:45:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is very confusing because I don't know if they started the 500 year run at 1860? 2000? 1900?. In either case I would assume pre-1860 conditions don't include forced CO2 trend of SRESA1B


I also am a bit confused on this particular point. The 500 year simulation, second century in, is the data in figure 3, which is the control simulation. That control simulation was made with pre-industrial conditions (no considerable human contribution to CO2 levels.) They are using the control simulation to compare to the actual data in Fig. 1, 1900-2000. Presumably, their 500 year simulation starts in 1800 and goes to 2300. I believe to test the validity of the model.

The article is in pdf format, and it's a primary reference. You don't have to pay to read it and it's linked in Masher's article above...

http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf

Figure 4c is the 21st century simulation, from which they project into the future. They used the IPCC data on CO2 levels in the simulation for Figure 4, but as the reference states, Figure 4 has been slope-corrected for temperature change due to global warming.

So, Masher jumped on these figures because they show what he wants to see, but in the details, it is not projecting a colder temperature in the future, but a cooling trend on top of global temperatures rising. Which would be a nice thing to see. Probably like what was seen earlier in the 20th century.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Zurtex on 8/14/2007 10:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
That's clearly not the full article, the full article costs $9 to read -_-


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Kuroyama on 8/14/2007 11:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oddly enough, despite the "Click Here for Full Article" button in the PDF, the above URL is in fact the full article, as I found when I used my university account to access it directly off the Geophysical Research Letters (a "letter" is generally a summary of results and does not include precise details). More details on research methods can be found in other papers on Tsonis' site.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Keeir on 8/14/2007 10:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
On that PDF on page 1 see the upper left hand corner where there is a "Link to Full Article"

That link leads you to a site that asks for $9 dollars or a subscription to view the full article.

Now, the linked, by M. Asher and now Rovemelt, pdf is the same size as the "full article" (333000 or so bytes). So perhaps this linked pdf is the full article... and its been pirated? to be displayed on someone website...?


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 8/14/2007 10:40:34 PM , Rating: 1
It seems to have the typical article format, so I think it's the full article. Publishers sometimes put out articles for free, and authors (in some locations under certain conditions) are sometimes allowed to give out pdf copies of their work.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Zurtex on 8/14/2007 10:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are right... I found the front page for it on Agu.org:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2007GL030...

Thought it seems quite convinced your supposed to be paying $9 of the version linked to above. So I just need to check that this is being legitimately linked to here and there's no copy right infringement going on??


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Rovemelt on 8/14/2007 11:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well, this is off topic, but I never liked how publishers essentially get free scientific material from which they make their money. 100 years ago, they had to pay someone to set up the printing press process. These days, the publishers ask you to submit in PDF or word format. They do little work with regards to layout and editing, but get the copyright while the author may have little or no right to give out PDF's of their own work! The publishers do have to find and organize the peer-review process, but reviewers don't get paid to review. So an expert in a field is expected to read and review manuscripts for free in their spare time. In fact, in some cases, the author has to pay ~$1000 to get an article published if it has color figures. IMHO, articles that were ultimately funded by US government research dollars (DoD, DoE, NAS, NSF, etc.) should be freely accessible to all US citizens. Their taxes paid for the most expensive part, which is data collection and analysis.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By Kuroyama on 8/14/2007 11:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hey you socialist pig! J/K

In my area Elsevier (in the Netherlands) is known for buying up prestigious journals and then doubling or tripling their prices, without making any changes of substance to warrant the increased prices. Of course, they only buy the prestigious ones, so the libraries are put in a quandry because any good library must subscribe to those journals. However, these days most of us know of results before they are even published (researchers generally work within a fairly small community), so it is becoming increasingly possible that libraries can drop the overpriced journals without too many problems.


RE: Wrong again Masher
By masher2 (blog) on 8/15/2007 12:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
> " I never liked how publishers essentially get free scientific material from which they make their money"

Glad to see we agree on something. I currently spend nearly $1000/year on scientific journal subscriptions, and would be happy to see that cost lowered, or even removed entirely. Most prestigious journals do have overhead well in excess of publishing costs, but their rate structure is still a bit of an anachronism.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki