The latest instance of "proof" of global warming.

Back on point , the media is making EVERYTHING weather related climate change, anybody with 2 living brain cells is and should question what and why they are pushing that agenda.
The whole model is based on 3 tree rings of the oldest trees in N America one of which was different and a theory ( sorry guess) that turned into a billon dollar industry pushed by Hollywood and the feds and computer models that were wrong , remember global warning till it was changed? Mostly for the Gores and big chem and the eco worriers to make money ( Not to save the plant)
Point anyone with some common sense understands that a bear eating a guide has nothing to do with weather or climate change.

Global Warming DOES NOT EXIST!!!! Just NATURE handling its BUSINESS!!! Originally Posted by NoTell

you're right on that, but climate change is real tho.

Yes, I'm a classical liberal, like Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. It sounds like you're illiberal. Do you believe that people who think evolution is real and the earth is round are filth too? Originally Posted by Tiny

BS! You are ignorant of your ignorance you CS.....

Jim, I don't think it's anywhere near that simple. I don't understand global warming, despite having spent at least a couple of days reading about it. In addition to heat transfer, there are considerations related to other transport phenomena, specifically mass transfer (e.g. melting of ice caps) and fluid dynamics (circulation in the atmosphere). I should be reasonably well equipped as a layman to understand this, having taken classes in theory of transport phenomena and computational methods of solving differential equations used to describe transport phenomena. But I really don't have a clue. Most people who study the subject for a living believe the evidence is very strong that it's happening.

Not sure what you're getting at when you talk about chemical reactions that occur and pollutants that are created when you burn coal, but if you mean particulate matter and sulphur dioxide produced by burning coal may have a cooling effect that partially offsets the effect of the carbon dioxide, you may be right. It sounds reasonable anyway. Originally Posted by Tiny

It's best to keep the Hypothesis of Global Warming simple, otherwise you'll go nuts. First of all what is the basic premise of Global Warming? Simply put "The Earth is progressively becoming warmer due to man's use of Fossil Fuels". Ok , that's fine. Some people say it's bullshit others will say it's a real phenomenon. So if one digs into it more scientifically than politically the real answers are there. We're talking about mankind and his use of energy sources that is warming the entire earth, not natural processes. In order to come to a realistic conclusion all parameters must be considered.

Jim

First of all what is the basic premise of Global Warming? Simply put "The Earth is progressively becoming warmer due to man's use of Fossil Fuels". Ok , that's fine. Some people say it's bullshit others will say it's a real phenomenon. So if one digs into it more scientifically than politically the real answers are there. We're talking about mankind and his use of energy sources that is warming the entire earth, not natural processes. In order to come to a realistic conclusion all parameters must be considered.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Agreed, about the science. You need to look at all the data. Basing scientific conclusions on political beliefs is plain stupid. It's a bit like the Roman Catholic Inquisition going after Galileo for his scientific observations. Both the left and the right are guilty of this, on global warming.

If you want to actually do something about it, then there are economic and political considerations. Should the world potentially forgo trillions of dollars of growth in return for hundreds of billions of dollars of net benefits? And how do you get the rest of the world to go along with what you do? If the USA cuts back on emissions, and developing countries continue to burn carbon with abandon, then whatever you're doing may be a drop in the bucket and unlikely to help.

So why do I think it's probably real and caused at least partially by burning fossil fuels, even though I really don't understand the science? Well, here's something from a web site that Trump's in charge of,

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

To save the environment, I suggest we lower human population. Particularly people who don't who do not want to support themselves and those who are into property crime and violent crime. I suggest abortion and sterilization, particularly in the third world. Here in the states, we need free abortion clinics. We need free sterilization to prison inmates and felons.

Less people would be better for the world.

Agreed, about the science. You need to look at all the data. Basing scientific conclusions on political beliefs is plain stupid. It's a bit like the Roman Catholic Inquisition going after Galileo for his scientific observations. Both the left and the right are guilty of this, on global warming.

If you want to actually do something about it, then there are economic and political considerations. Should the world potentially forgo trillions of dollars of growth in return for hundreds of billions of dollars of net benefits? And how do you get the rest of the world to go along with what you do? If the USA cuts back on emissions, and developing countries continue to burn carbon with abandon, then whatever you're doing may be a drop in the bucket and unlikely to help.

So why do I think it's probably real and caused at least partially by burning fossil fuels, even though I really don't understand the science? Well, here's something from a web site that Trump's in charge of,

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Originally Posted by Tiny

I suggest that you ask someone who is "in" on the consensus to explain global warming in detail.

Have a few facts, like the changing "data", the model assumptions(water vapor causes the bulk of the heat retention), and the list of consequences(they are all "bad").

When you get finished talking, they will conclude that this isn't science, but risk attenuation, and a method to limit non-renewable resource use. If they are leftist, they will also conclude that it the use of such concepts, fake or not, is what spurs society forward, and will compare it to the Apollo project.

When you point out that such concepts are fundamentally fascist, they will get mad.

I've been through this cycle dozens of times, and it comes out the same every time.

I have been interested in this since the 90's, and have tracked the noaa reported data for my local weather stations since then. The change in our local stations has matched the "warming" reported by noaa within 10%. The fudging of the underlying data would be comical if it wasn't being used for imposition of fascist ideal onto our country.

By "change", I mean that they have changed the historic data as has been deemed necessary to make it look like global warming has been occurring. My conclusion is that the underlying data is so corrupt that it is essentially unusable for decision making processes.

I have been reading a lot( so I don't have to listen to the SO) on the issue from both sides to try and understand the science involved. First I agree with not polluting more then necessary.
Second the whole basic "science" is at best a theory ( more like a guess) and computer modeling which started a billion dollar industry.
Third the evidence points to the earth and natural cycles , just watch the weather the minute NOAA / NWS states the temp is hot or cold and its climate change really listen the 7 hottest or coldest day. When you look into the statement you find the hot/cold day is normally in the early 1900s before coal/ cars etc.
Kehaar is correct it is a "cult" following you can't discuss facts your labeled "denier" , now scientists theat don't have "a horse in the race" are finding facts the dispute the climate change "models" ( anthropology / archeologist ) and you will Never hear any of the fact on CNN , weather channel etc just saying.

I suggest that you ask someone who is "in" on the consensus to explain global warming in detail.

Have a few facts, like the changing "data", the model assumptions(water vapor causes the bulk of the heat retention), and the list of consequences(they are all "bad").

When you get finished talking, they will conclude that this isn't science, but risk attenuation, and a method to limit non-renewable resource use. If they are leftist, they will also conclude that it the use of such concepts, fake or not, is what spurs society forward, and will compare it to the Apollo project.

When you point out that such concepts are fundamentally fascist, they will get mad.

I've been through this cycle dozens of times, and it comes out the same every time.

I have been interested in this since the 90's, and have tracked the noaa reported data for my local weather stations since then. The change in our local stations has matched the "warming" reported by noaa within 10%. The fudging of the underlying data would be comical if it wasn't being used for imposition of fascist ideal onto our country.

By "change", I mean that they have changed the historic data as has been deemed necessary to make it look like global warming has been occurring. My conclusion is that the underlying data is so corrupt that it is essentially unusable for decision making processes. Originally Posted by kehaar

This is how I think a climate simulation program works. First you divide everything from the crust of the earth up to the upper atmosphere into cubes, or more accurately three dimensional rectangular cells. How small the cells will be will depend on how much computing power you've got. Maybe they're around 300 miles wide by 300 miles long by 10 miles thick -- I'm just picking that out of the air.

From physics and engineering, you have equations describing three types of "transport phenomona" between the cells,

1. Fluid flow, that is, the movement of air (in the atmosphere) and water (in the oceans) between the cells.

2. Energy transfer, the absorption and emission of heat and radiation between the cells

3. Mass transfer. You construct your cells so that boundaries between cells exist along interfaces between ice sheets and air and between water and air. And you have equations describing the transition from ice or water on the earth's surface to water vapor. And maybe melting of ice sheets to water, I'm not sure.

You assign properties to each of the cells. You have to handle things like clouds. Also, as Dilbert and Jim have pointed out, probably things like volcanic ash and pollutants that may cause temperature to go down.

Next get a history match, where you use historical values for your inputs and see what the results are in terms of the calculated temperatures. If your simulation program can't match historical temperature, your simulation isn't worth shit. You need to go back and vary your inputs, and maybe your methodology.

Once you have a history match so you can have some confidence in your model, then you run the simulator, varying inputs like the CO2 level and perhaps other greenhouse gasses and pollutants, and you see the effect on temperature.

Does it work? I have "0" experience with climate modeling, but do know something about fluid flow. I worked on problems involving movement of fluids over areas much, much smaller than the earth, maybe a mile by two miles. Once I was asked to model a project that involved both fluid flow and mass transfer. The only way to solve the problem was with a simulation program. Without it there was no way you'd have any idea whatsoever of what was going on. And the earth's atmosphere is so much more complex. You have so many unknowns, so many variables, that you can't know whether global warming is real or not with simplistic models. If you do the simulation and get a good history match, all the while using a methodology based on the science and good input data, then you should have a very good idea of whether or not carbon emissions are contributing to global warming. You won't "know" the answer with 100% certainty though.

Looking at temperature data since the 1990's for one location isn't going to tell you anything. Global warming will likely cause certain locations (some of the cells) to get cooler, and the better simulation programs should show that.

For most or all of us, thinking we know the answers to global warming is a huge exercise in self deception. If you've got a PhD in physics and are willing to spend several months solid studying this, then yeah, you've probably got a fighting chance. Otherwise forget it. You're not going to find the answer by watching Fox News or MSNBC.

With respect to how the level of carbon emissions may effect global warming, we're kind of like Roosevelt was when he was deciding whether to pursue the Manhattan project. He had to rely on the experts.

What should we do about carbon emissions? That's a whole different story. The climatologists don't have a good handle on the effects or their magnitude. My suspicion is that cutting way back on emissions isn't going to be worth it. We'll be spending much, much more than we'll get back. But I could be wrong, I don't really know. My optimism is based on what Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician who's studied the economics of global warming, wrote. And I've read some criticisms of his work that make me less confident about this than I was.

This is how I think a climate simulation program works. First you divide everything from the crust of the earth up to the upper atmosphere into cubes, or more accurately three dimensional rectangular cells. How small the cells will be will depend on how much computing power you've got. Maybe they're around 300 miles wide by 300 miles long by 10 miles thick -- I'm just picking that out of the air.

From physics and engineering, you have equations describing three types of "transport phenomona" between the cells,

1. Fluid flow, that is, the movement of air (in the atmosphere) and water (in the oceans) between the cells.

2. Energy transfer, the absorption and emission of heat and radiation between the cells

3. Mass transfer. You construct your cells so that boundaries between cells exist along interfaces between ice sheets and air and between water and air. And you have equations describing the transition from ice or water on the earth's surface to water vapor. And maybe melting of ice sheets to water, I'm not sure.

You assign properties to each of the cells. You have to handle things like clouds. Also, as Dilbert and Jim have pointed out, probably things like volcanic ash and pollutants that may cause temperature to go down.

Next get a history match, where you use historical values for your inputs and see what the results are in terms of the calculated temperatures. If your simulation program can't match historical temperature, your simulation isn't worth shit. You need to go back and vary your inputs, and maybe your methodology.

Once you have a history match so you can have some confidence in your model, then you run the simulator, varying inputs like the CO2 level and perhaps other greenhouse gasses and pollutants, and you see the effect on temperature.

Does it work? I have "0" experience with climate modeling, but do know something about fluid flow. I worked on problems involving movement of fluids over areas much, much smaller than the earth, maybe a mile by two miles. Once I was asked to model a project that involved both fluid flow and mass transfer. The only way to solve the problem was with a simulation program. Without it there was no way you'd have any idea whatsoever of what was going on. And the earth's atmosphere is so much more complex. You have so many unknowns, so many variables, that you can't know whether global warming is real or not with simplistic models. If you do the simulation and get a good history match, all the while using a methodology based on the science and good input data, then you should have a very good idea of whether or not carbon emissions are contributing to global warming. You won't "know" the answer with 100% certainty though.

Looking at temperature data since the 1990's for one location isn't going to tell you anything. Global warming will likely cause certain locations (some of the cells) to get cooler, and the better simulation programs should show that.

For most or all of us, thinking we know the answers to global warming is a huge exercise in self deception. If you've got a PhD in physics and are willing to spend several months solid studying this, then yeah, you've probably got a fighting chance. Otherwise forget it. You're not going to find the answer by watching Fox News or MSNBC.

With respect to how the level of carbon emissions may effect global warming, we're kind of like Roosevelt was when he was deciding whether to pursue the Manhattan project. He had to rely on the experts.

What should we do about carbon emissions? That's a whole different story. The climatologists don't have a good handle on the effects or their magnitude. My suspicion is that cutting way back on emissions isn't going to be worth it. We'll be spending much, much more than we'll get back. But I could be wrong, I don't really know. My optimism is based on what Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician who's studied the economics of global warming, wrote. And I've read some criticisms of his work that make me less confident about this than I was. Originally Posted by Tiny

There are probably 50 scientist who understand the global warming "model", yet I hear repeatedly of the "consensus" of thousands of scientist who proclaim it to be true.

Physics is not the specialty required for understanding climate models.

The underlying data has been perverted. The raw data has been obfuscated to the point that that, for all intents and purposes, it is useless.

Without data, a model is useless. Given that you understand fluid flow, can you predict the friction factor in pipe under turbulent flow conditions without empircal factors? That is a far less complicated problem than CO2 emmissions effect on climate change.

Your final statements are fascist. To paraphrase:

"This problem is so complex that I must rely on a priest to tell me what is important. "

I have done due diligence on this effort, and what they are proffering isn't science.


kehaar

PS
Does anyone find it odd that all of the "consequences" of global warming that are being reported are negative. I recently received a crop and market report from an organization that has skin in the game for potential climate change. The last several years have been remarkably productive, with all major crop growing regions, on average, having productive weather year after year.

This has been atypical. Not once did they mention "global warming", or "climate change", but if both side were represented in the media(if they weren't fascist), such observations would be noticed and reported. They weren't. Why? Because it does not fit the agenda.

Kehaar, See responses in blue

There are probably 50 scientist who understand the global warming "model", yet I hear repeatedly of the "consensus" of thousands of scientist who proclaim it to be true.

There are more than 50. The majority or most of the so called "skeptics" among his group believe as I do, that carbon and methane emissions by humans are probably part of the reason for global warming. Some of the "skeptics" have been condemned by colleagues because they question whether global warming is calamitous, or whether doing a lot to lower carbon emissions is worth the cost

Physics is not the specialty required for understanding climate models.

It's sure as hell not some Micky Mouse degree in climatology or meteorology. The top scientists have backgrounds in geophysics, physics, geology, engineering and mathematics.

The underlying data has been perverted. The raw data has been obfuscated to the point that that, for all intents and purposes, it is useless.

Not true

Without data, a model is useless. Given that you understand fluid flow, can you predict the friction factor in pipe under turbulent flow conditions without empircal factors? That is a far less complicated problem than CO2 emmissions effect on climate change.

Agreed

Your final statements are fascist. To paraphrase:

"This problem is so complex that I must rely on a priest to tell me what is important. "

There's a huge difference in relying on a priest and relying on the top researchers in a field. Regarding the question "is global warming happening and are emissions of carbon dioxide and/or methane probably contributing to it", agreement among top climate scientists would be similar to the level of agreement among biologists and geologists that evolution is real. Almost everyone believes the data supports that.

I have done due diligence on this effort, and what they are proffering isn't science.

Are your statements the ones that are actually "fascist"? That you've done the due diligence so, irregardless of the views of the top experts in the field, we should consider global warming a non-issue? I actually don't think so, because you're not, say, dictator of a large country, who would have the power to stop debate. I don't understand your definition of "fascist", and note you include Eva Peron and Imelda Marcos among the top fascists in history worth mentioning, unless you were kidding. In addition to Antifa types, there are also people on your side of the debate that want the other side to shut up. See the FU comments in this thread from Marshall for example.


kehaar

PS
Does anyone find it odd that all of the "consequences" of global warming that are being reported are negative. I recently received a crop and market report from an organization that has skin in the game for potential climate change. The last several years have been remarkably productive, with all major crop growing regions, on average, having productive weather year after year.

Agreed. Some areas would benefit from global warming, Canada and Russia for example.
This has been atypical. Not once did they mention "global warming", or "climate change", but if both side were represented in the media(if they weren't fascist), such observations would be noticed and reported. They weren't. Why? Because it does not fit the agenda. Originally Posted by kehaar

Both sides are represented in the media, and by your definition some of the extremists on both sides are "fascist."

My point in conclusion is "to what end" I agree with a/c unit being better car getting great gas mileage so no But I'm not ready to live in a cave with out a/c and internet(LOL).
So the point of reasonableness ( on both sides ) is the issue, should we spend billions on IFFY theories that may or may not effect the earth in 10,000 years , or be reasonable about expectations, I agree that both side have gone to the fascist in trying to make the points> ( the media is another issue)

Dutchman, That makes a lot of sense, I wish I had your ability to convey a point without writing a book

Thanks Tiny

Dutchman, That makes a lot of sense, I wish I had your ability to convey a point without writing a book Originally Posted by Tiny

you wouldn't be happy though, just saying