Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 01/28/2009 View Tue 01/27/2009 View Mon 01/26/2009 View Sun 01/25/2009 View Sat 01/24/2009 View Fri 01/23/2009 View Thu 01/22/2009
1
2009-01-28 Home Front Economy
Climate Change Could Choke Oceans for 100,000 Years
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2009-01-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ]  Top

#1 As per the A2 Scenario, IOW humans have until 2100 ["end of the century"] to live because many MMGW Perts argue that Mankind + biotic life can't naturally survive a TEMP CHANGE OF THAT MAGNITUDE???

SUB-IOW, WE MUST MILITARILY FORCE OWG-NWO = SOCIALIST ORDER UPON THE WORLD IN ORDER TO HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BEGIN BUILDING UNDERGROUND = ENCLOSED ENVIRON-REGULATED CITIES [Logan's Run].

SUB-SUB-IOW, D **** THE HADRON COLLIDER, MORIARITY, NASA-JPL + AREA 51/53 etc. MUST BEGIN SENDING ITS [Crewed, populated] MILE(S)-SIZED "ALIEN/ROSWELLIAN UFO" CRAFTS = SPACE ARKS INTO SPACE - NOW, ASAP, TWAS YESTERDAY AND DECADES AGO SINCE ROSWELL???
Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-01-28 01:13||   2009-01-28 01:13|| Front Page Top

#2 These people cannot tell us with accuracy what next Tuesdays weather will be, but here is our fate for the next 100,000 years?
What crap
Posted by Helmuth, Speaking for Thromong2805 2009-01-28 01:19||   2009-01-28 01:19|| Front Page Top

#3 I would be interested to know the degree to which major volcanic eruptions during the next 40 years have been factored into the forecast - given that Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinatubo both resulted in rapid and dramatic cooling of the atmosphere - just within the past 30 years. I have to assume that there will be some equally "chilling" volcanic eruptions within the next 40 years - as has been the pattern for many centuries/millenia - meaning that volcanic eruptions are a normal part of the global climate system.
Posted by Lone Ranger 2009-01-28 04:46||   2009-01-28 04:46|| Front Page Top

#4 These people cannot tell us with accuracy what next Tuesdays weather will be, but here is our fate for the next 100,000 years?

I don't know which cars in front of me on the way to work will take exit 5A either, but I know that it's going to be painfully congested between 7 and 8:30 AM on M-F.

There are big assumptions in these climate models that are incomplete and perhaps unjustified. But the criticism that "they can't predict Tuesday's weather" isn't particularly cogent. Tuesday's weather in one place is a specific data item. Climate is the aggregate effect of millions of such items over a very long time.

In many cases it's perfectly possible to model complex processes and get overall system performance without being able to predict the behavior of one element in the system. To do so requires a good grasp of the underlying dynamics and of the key factors driving the system. Lots of such models have proven useful - I and my colleagues build them for all sorts of purposes.

We do NOT have a sufficiently firm grasp of all of the forces that aggregate to climate however, which is why there is so much disagreement about the effects of unprecedented inputs into the climate system. Models always come with the caveat that they are predictive if and only if a) they capture the key factors accurately and b) the assumed input conditions hold in real life. We can predict - or influence - how much C02 we put out. But if we don't really know all the main driving factors that aggregate to climate, it's very difficult to judge how useful a projection of the sort described in this article really is.

My take is that it is not a final answer. But it IS a model of one factor/mechanism that drives climate. How much it does so, and what other factors might be at work to dampen its effects, is not at all clear, however.
Posted by lotp 2009-01-28 07:20||   2009-01-28 07:20|| Front Page Top

#5 I agree with your weather analogy, lotp, but do you also believe econometric models 5, 10 20 years out? And the economy is far less complex than climate. This is an unwinnable argument for either side because the time scale involved for either is so long that we will not know.

This is not really a scientific discussion, it is resource allocation and politics.

What we do know is that the recommendations of the greens will force billions further into poverty and cause massive death and misery. Risk this for some academic's model, the failure of which will have no consequences for its author? Bah.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-01-28 07:57||   2009-01-28 07:57|| Front Page Top

#6 
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2009-01-28 08:45|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2009-01-28 08:45|| Front Page Top

#7 "It reemphasizes the valid point that global warming will lead to a decrease in ocean oxygen levels with potentially adverse consequences for marine life."

Depends on if this model is based on “algorithms” or “Al Gore-rithims”.
Posted by DepotGuy 2009-01-28 09:20||   2009-01-28 09:20|| Front Page Top

#8 I believe the point lotp is making is that we do not know enough to reasonably claim the current global warming models are either valid or invalid.
In my opinion man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 IS a factor to be considered in global climate models. It is not the only factor. I don't think we even know how significant a factor it is. In addition to the tons emitted, we need to understand potential buffering or allied processes (chemical or biologic feedback loops, water expansion, solubility changes, shelf area changes and their ecologic effects, etc.) Then there are other anthropogenic processes that might also affect climate - particulates in the air, acids in the water, methane releases (decreased or increased?), fertilizer in the water, etc.) And even if we totally understood all of this, and could perfectly manage and control it, we still might find we had neglible effect on climate (or not), since we don't know how the solar variables compare.
Climate is a valid and vital area for scientific research. But the treatment of our current state of knowledge seems more like religious dogma than science.
Posted by Glenmore 2009-01-28 09:42||   2009-01-28 09:42|| Front Page Top

#9 do you also believe econometric models 5, 10 20 years out

The difficulty with econometric models is that we have and will continue to see significant new factors inserted into the economic system, primary among them technological changes that introduce real discontinuities or at a minimum significant changes in costs, resource uses, life span etc.

There are SWAG estimates that try to adjust for those effects, but they are very hard to tune correctly.

In my own modeling work, I and my colleagues always do sensitivity analysis on our assumptions and these sorts of parameters. In other words, given that we are estimating unknowns, how *much* does the outcome of the model vary if we vary those estimates?

If the model output is not very sensitive to changes in an assumption or parameter, we don't fuss much with it. But if the output is indeed sensitive to a parameter, then we try our best to hone in and improve those estimates or, at the very least, to make clear that this is an area to track carefully and to re-model when we can get better data.

As Glenmore notes, however, we can't do sensitivity analysis WRT factors that aren't even in the model. And that is the huge caveat WRT climate modeling at this point.

Setting aside politics, there is nonetheless value in creating models now. For one thing, they can be used to predict the outcome *if* assumptions are valid. Should events proceed in ways similar to the model's predictions, it tends to validate the model's accuacy. OTOH should events diverge from the predictions, then there is a basis for exploring what other factors might be at work.

Standard empirical science techniques, the value of which have been obscured by political agendas from all sides.
Posted by lotp 2009-01-28 09:46||   2009-01-28 09:46|| Front Page Top

#10 The best way to test one of these models is to use them to reverse engineer the current state.

Put in the values for ALL known factors for a historical period and see if your model predicts the present. No climate models do this. The modeling methodologies and data gathering methodologies are a crock (See Dr. John Theon's testimony to congress).

Until the warmalists open their data and models to independent peer review and replication (you know, real science) this is just greed/politically driven theology.

How many sunspots have you seen lately?
Posted by AlanC 2009-01-28 10:04||   2009-01-28 10:04|| Front Page Top

#11 There's stuff I wanted to talk about re: climate change. But I just spent 9 hours trying to sleep and only succeeding in lying awake in bed. I feel lousy.

Maybe tomorrow.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-01-28 10:24||   2009-01-28 10:24|| Front Page Top

#12 over 100K years you get a lot of natural evolution in the ocean.

Hell man evolved in that sort of timeframe.
Posted by Jating Black8373 2009-01-28 10:48||   2009-01-28 10:48|| Front Page Top

#13 "Global Warming" is the biggest political scam of the past century.

Educate yourselves to the facts. The whole "mankind cause climate change" has no real science in it.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:zHEbvStyq2QJ:www.dmi.dk/dmi/dkc06-03.pdf+danish+climate+study&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&lr=lang_en

Sorry, too much going on to HTMLize the links
Posted by DLR">DLR  2009-01-28 11:09|| http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html]">[http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html]  2009-01-28 11:09|| Front Page Top

#14 Better late than never...

Nasa Supervisor Speaks Out

AGW is a scam
Posted by Abu do you love">Abu do you love  2009-01-28 13:18||   2009-01-28 13:18|| Front Page Top

#15 Not to mention Asteroid 1999 AN10.
Posted by Mullah Richard 2009-01-28 13:27||   2009-01-28 13:27|| Front Page Top

#16 This man calls himself a "scientist"? According to data from Fred Singer, there are something like 115,000 variables that affect climate. They include everything from solar forcing, to percentage of vegetation per area of land, to how many cows graze on a pasture. None of the current models used to produce AGW results properly account for solar forcing and sunspot activity, although there are extensive scientific studies that have tied these to prior global climate changes. We're due for another ice age in about 2000 years, if the preceeding pattern of 13,000-14,000 years of warming, then 75,000+ years of cooling (Ice Age).

As AlanC said, the best way to check the validity of a model is to use it to explain what's already happened. The solar/sunspot models come far closer than the AGW claims. The real climate may be somewhere else entirely, simply because current computer models aren't strong enough to handle even 30 variables, much less 115,000. And as LOTP said, we may find, as we study the earth's climate more closely, there are even variables we haven't discovered yet. There's still a lot we don't know about this planet we live on, or the universe it's in.
Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot  2009-01-28 14:26|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]  2009-01-28 14:26|| Front Page Top

#17 The worst thing about this is that THERE IS NO SCIENCE HERE!!!!!!!!!

Talking about the variables for the models etc. gives this scam more benefit than it deserves. Look at the really simple stuff, data collection.

Have you checked out the siting of these weather stations? Have you noticed that there are none to speak of in most of Asia or the Antarctic? Where do these liars get their numbers? THEY MAKE THEM UP!!!!!!

This is all a fraud and I wish Gore and his myrmidons could be sued into peury for the harm they have caused.
Posted by AlanC 2009-01-28 14:40||   2009-01-28 14:40|| Front Page Top

#18 True Alan, Some of the 'stations' are situated in the middle (or very close) to a blacktop parking lots. Or close to AC outlets (read: warm air).
Posted by CrazyFool 2009-01-28 14:56||   2009-01-28 14:56|| Front Page Top

#19 Good, I can't stand seafood anyway.
Posted by Injun Spomoper6133 2009-01-28 17:26||   2009-01-28 17:26|| Front Page Top

23:54 whatadeal
23:51 Anonymoose
23:49 whatadeal
23:33 whatadeal
22:52 Frank G
22:39 Frank G
22:33 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
22:31 Jaique Johnson2117
21:49 trailing wife
21:48 lotp
21:45 JosephMendiola
21:42 Herman Flineck aka Broadhead6
21:36 OldSpook
21:30 JosephMendiola
21:27 JosephMendiola
21:27 Pappy
21:26 Ebbeart8537
21:13 DMFD
21:13 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
21:03 lotp
21:00 DepotGuy
20:53 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
20:42 Seafarious
20:29 Barbara Skolaut









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com