TT and other science geeks

#1
H

hndog609

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
13,714
Likes
10,181
#1
Hope that title doesn't come across as an insult to anybody since it surely wasn't meant to be. I put that heading in since this isn't exactly light reading and a lot of people just wouldn't be all that interested. For those not wanting to wade through the whole thing here's the tip of the spear:

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modelling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution."

This isn't something that should be able to be blithely shrugged off by the AGW crowd since this is a published paper in the International Journal Of Climatology. Also note this isn't some hatchet job on warming. It merely points out that one might want to be little dubious about some of the numbers these models are spitting out.

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions

And as I always seem to do (sorry) I find myself very much vexed by how this sort of information is all but unavailable to average people who aren't looking for it. Yet I will say with absolute certainty that if a strong positive correlation were found this would be referenced much more often and by more mainstream sources.
 
#2
#2
As a person who works at FNMOC/NPS I will say that our models are very often wrong or skewed by more than 5%
 
#3
#3
MontereyVol said:
As a person who works at FNMOC/NPS I will say that our models are very often wrong or skewed by more than 5%
Click to expand...

I have to admit some ignorance on the scope of what the FNMOC does. Is that mostly short-term meteorology and ocean waves etc?
 
#5
#5
Fleet Numerical Meteorological Oceanographic Center. It depends on what products you are looking at? They do both short and long term predictions.
 
#6
#6
Sorry....I'm out of town at a conference and my internet time is spotty. I think that I've actually read this information before...or it is related to the same information that perhaps VinBham asked me about once. I don't have time to read it in detail right now, but does it pertain to having the wrong heating pattern with altitude in the tropics?
 
#8
#8
TennTradition said:
Sorry....I'm out of town at a conference and my internet time is spotty. I think that I've actually read this information before...or it is related to the same information that perhaps VinBham asked me about once. I don't have time to read it in detail right now, but does it pertain to having the wrong heating pattern with altitude in the tropics?
Click to expand...

There might be more than one article covering this but that does sound like the same material. Sorry if it is and I just missed it the first time. It was the first time I'd seen it and found it interesting and, of course, was discouraged by how I'd never heard a whisper about it in anything remotely mainstream.

Monterey, I was aware of the FNMOC and the obvious need for the Navy (or any military branch for that matter) to keep a sharp eye on the weather. I was not aware that they delved into any sort of long-term climatology projections though. Interesting.
 
#9
#9
It's difficult for me to imagine how anyone could buy hook line and sinker into the GW myth at this point. Mainstream media is evil.
 
#10
#10
NPS does most of that research. FNMOC runs the data through their computers, one reason they did not get BRAC'ed. There is a lot of interesting theories being tossed around but the most prevalent is that GW is not an Earth restricted event. The solar system itself is heating up (that is fact not theory)
 
#11
#11
MontereyVol said:
NPS does most of that research. FNMOC runs the data through their computers, one reason they did not get BRAC'ed. There is a lot of interesting theories being tossed around but the most prevalent is that GW is not an Earth restricted event. The solar system itself is heating up (that is fact not theory)
Click to expand...

That solar theory is going to pick up or lose a lot of cred based on observations outside of earth in the near future. It will be a very interesting thing to follow.

Thanks for the FNMOC/NPS insight.
 
#12
#12
Makes sense that, if warming is due to sun activity, it would effect the entire solar system. Such reasearch should put an end to the man-made global warming scam, but I'm sure it won't.
 
#13
#13
Anything reported by the media should be observed with suspicion. Anything repeatedly reported without a fact involved should be viewed as hearsay.

The Earth, most people do not know, is in its most stable climate it has ever been in (that we know of) and things will inevitably become worse. Mountian ranges will crumble, super volcanos will erupt, meteroids/asteroids are going to hit our planet, whole countries will turn to deserts, Carbon Dioxide will increase and decrease, polar ice will melt and reform, forests will vanish and animals will become extinct in their present form.

The media is just going to report the thing that is going to scare you the most. Right now its global warming, a decade ago it was an ice age, before that it was Communism. Who knows what is next, another cold war? Global deserts?
 
#14
#14
Here's something new on that solar angle:

Solar cycle minimum at the earliest in second half of 2008? « Watts Up With That?

And yet another tidbit that I'm predicting will find precious little play in the mainstream media.

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Recent Data On Surface Snowmelt In Antarctica

Here's the part that should per your ears (ok, eyes):

The melting index (MI, a measure of where melting occurred and for how long) in 2008 was the second-smallest value in the 1987–2008 period, with 3,465,625 square kilometers times days (km2 × days) against the average value of 8,407,531 km2 × days

Hmmm.
 
#15
#15
hndog609 said:
Here's something new on that solar angle:

Solar cycle minimum at the earliest in second half of 2008? « Watts Up With That?

And yet another tidbit that I'm predicting will find precious little play in the mainstream media.

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Recent Data On Surface Snowmelt In Antarctica

Here's the part that should per your ears (ok, eyes):

The melting index (MI, a measure of where melting occurred and for how long) in 2008 was the second-smallest value in the 1987–2008 period, with 3,465,625 square kilometers times days (km2 × days) against the average value of 8,407,531 km2 × days

Hmmm.
Click to expand...

It is true that these aspects don't get play in the media...but it isn't restricted to just one side. While these articles point out holes in the theory...or problems with its predictions....there are many, many papers published throughout the year that show refinements to the model, that show how well the model fits the data in other areas, etc. The media isn't going to pick up on any of this - not just one side. The only thing the media is going to pick up on are reports of "doom and gloom," which are a small fraction of the actual scientific basis. If a huge chunk of ice falls off of an Antarctic ice shelf, the media will be all over it and blame it on global warming...but when it comes to actual science, the media tends to stay far, far away.

A good example of the press picking up on a science story would be the recent Time cover, "The Biofuel Scam." I hear people complaining about scientists pushing a Biofuel agenda and pulling a scam and not recognizing the negative impacts of a biofuel market (corn-based ethanol, for example). But, that is crap. First, the Time article was based on a scientists work that was published in Science. Second, I have heard for a very long time about the perils of many forms of biofuels in the scientific community. I am at a conference this week where these points are brought up in every presentation...however, that doesn't stop Congress from subsidizing corn ethanol.... (and it doesn't just stop there...there are problems beyond corn ethanol).
 
#16
#16
TennTradition said:
If a huge chunk of ice falls off of an Antarctic ice shelf, the media will be all over it and blame it on global warming...but when it comes to actual science, the media tends to stay far, far away.
.
Click to expand...

That, right there, is what makes my eyes bleed sometimes. And it's not just the rush to cover things like ice shelves. It's like when you turn on the news and some perky lady is standing there smiling and says something like

"And here is the season's first robin sighting in Wala Wala. This is 17.5 minutes earlier than the one first seen in 2001 and it leaves some wondering if Global Warming isn't to blame."

Obviously that isn't an actual example but I've seen and read stories that follow a similar formula over and over and OVER again. I can't state in civil terms how maddening it is to me. I also know, with 99.9% certainty, I will never see this woman asked to point out that, say, the 2008 antarctic snowmelt is 40% below the average for '87-'07.

The bio-fuels thing is in fact interesting since even early on I've seen a lot of skeptics on that one. I even read a pretty harsh piece on that in one of the outdoor magazines. Field&Stream maybe? Anyway, there's always the "true believers" but I saw people unimpressed with biofuels for quite some time. Part of their problem is that real-world problems can be seen in the short term. Global Warming can play hide-and-seek behind all manner of "unanswered questions".
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top