Interesting Climate Model - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 08-27-2007, 05:09 PM

It regulated through thousand year cycles of increased Ice cover.

But how did an ice age start when it was too hot? What triggered it? Did the solar output of energy or something change?

We Don't....there is no mood to repair.

That isn't exactly correct. We do have ways to cultivate algee and come up with other ways to remove CO2. It would be easier to reduce it bwfore it got too far out of control, but I think humans would be able to come up with something. Teh problem is that there is no money to be made by gathering C02 without a carbon market where you need to pay to polute, but can get money back by cleaning up the environment.

Die....but not everyone...heh.

As long as it isn't me, I won't have a problem with that. 6.2 billion people breathing has to create some level of CO2 by itself. The temperature could go up another 20F or an ice age could happen and I would be fine. Or at least could survive longer than the other people looking for food.

raveneye · 09-02-2007, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I was tempted to point out a similar observation raveneye, but as of late find this whole debate rather pointless. Regardless of Data, there will be those who decide the climate change issue is not important, and those who do. I have given up trying to "Convince" anyone unwilling to see what the scientific community has given them....they are irrelevant to the problem.

Well I don't think they're politically irrelevant -- as we all know, they sometimes get elected two-term POTUS.... But I don't mind showing how intellectually bankrupt they are, not to teach any pigs to sing, but rather for anybody in the audience who is interested and who votes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

1. How has the planet corrected the hot temperature in the past?

2. How do we clean up the environment and atmosphere to make humans impact on the temperature less of a debate?

3. What are we going to do if the temperature goes up at an accelerated rate due to something like the ocean currents slowing down due to fresh water consentrations, the white polar ice cap not reflecting sunlight throughout the summer, the natural CO2 scrubbers can't keep up with our increased emmissions?

1. Mainly sun cycles and volcanic eruption cycles, not much help to us now.
2. It's about 99.9% politics -- there are no technological obstacles anymore, and the U.S. is in the driver's seat.
3. We've probably already passed the tipping point for the arctic polar ice (this year, in fact). It will most likely be gone during the summers by 10 years or so, maybe as early as 4 years according to some models, along with all the specialized species (the most charismatic being the polar bears and walruses). The 2000 election was probably the last chance we had to save it. The next U.S. election will be critical for the Greenland ice and the Antarctic, but we might even be too late for them as well. It's easy to predict in general what physically will happen to the earth if we don't act in the next 5-10 years. How people will respond is harder to know. At least we can expect millions of very pissed off folks by 2050, and given human nature, they'll all be looking for a scapegoat.

EDIT: I didn't notice the new GW thread. Followups should probably go there.

aceventura3 · 09-24-2007, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

This is the latest temperature model, taking us back over 100 yrs. I seriously hope someone screwed up the Data when they made this.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...te_320x240.mpg

Another error by Hansen? Perhaps he can explain why he changed his mind and why there is no longer any reasonable basis to debate the issue.

Quote:

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/2...ON02/109190067

dc_dux · 09-24-2007, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Another error by Hansen? Perhaps he can explain why he changed his mind and why there is no longer any reasonable basis to debate the issue.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/2...ON02/109190067

I would commend any scientist or any rational thinking person who, upon having access to new technology and being presented with new data, changed his mind from a position held 36 years earlier.

aceventura3 · 09-24-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would commend any scientist or any rational thinking person who, upon having access to new technology and being presented with new data, changed his mind from a position held 36 years earlier.

You make a good point and that is the point at issue. Many take the position that global warming and its causes are now factual and that the question is no longer open to continued discussion. I respect a person who can change their view given new information. I think Hansen has an opportunity to explain how new information lead him to a new conclusion and what was faulty in his original assessment of the information available. I Have not seen where he has done that, have you?

raveneye · 09-25-2007, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Another error by Hansen? Perhaps he can explain why he changed his mind and why there is no longer any reasonable basis to debate the issue.

Uh, maybe because he never said nor believed that an ice age was imminent?

Did you read your own link?

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 06:20 AM

Here, I will take the effort to place the linked information...makes it easier to read:

Quote:

"U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming," blares the headline of the July 9, 1971, article, which cautions readers that the world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts."

The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the Library of Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas."

If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Obviously Hansen had no attachment to the statement (which actually clarified a hypothesis, not even a theory), other than developing a program used to extrapolate Data. Might I suggest that in your attempts to discredit Climate Change theory, you at least use accurate Data, and context when debating it.

aceventura3 · 09-25-2007, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Uh, maybe because he never said nor believed that an ice age was imminent?

Did you read your own link?

I apologize for the confusion. Hansen was a research associate at Columbia University at the time of the article in 1971. Rasool, in his research, used a computer program model developed by Hansen.

Hansen's model either was wrong then or he his wrong now. Like I wrote it would be nice if he came forward and explained how he came to new conclusions.

Regardless, the main point is still on the table. Is global warming and it cause worthy of discussion and further scientific evaluation or has the question been settled?

{added}

I re-read what I wrote and actually think it is clear. I asked if it was an error on his part, which is a legitimate question in the context of his involvement. And given his model, it appears to be wrong given his current position. He should explain the discrepancy or explain why his model then did not support the conclusions drawn from it. All fair and reasonable comments on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Here, I will take the effort to place the linked information...makes it easier to read:

Obviously Hansen had no attachment to the statement (which actually clarified a hypothesis, not even a theory), other than developing a program used to extrapolate Data. Might I suggest that in your attempts to discredit Climate Change theory, you at least use accurate Data, and context when debating it.

What bothers me is the name calling when someone even suggests the possibility that the globe is not warming or that "man" may not be directly responsible. I think Hansen's model then and his views now illustrate how important it is to have an open mind on the subject, because after all, most of the data indicating correlations and predicting future trends are based on assumptions built into models.

Questioning scientific findings is commonly accepted in the scientific community, if you have a problem with that - it is your issue.

raveneye · 09-25-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Hansen's model either was wrong then or he his wrong now.

Or his model was right then and he is right now. Did you know that a model has input and output? If you change the input it will change the output? The input Hansen used to study the clouds of Venus could be entirely correct for Venus, while at the same time the input Rasool used to study CO2 and aerosols on Earth could be incorrect for Earth. In fact it was, as has been pointed out thousands of times: his CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of three.

Quote:

Regardless, the main point is still on the table. Is global warming and it cause worthy of discussion and further scientific evaluation or has the question been settled?

There are some questions that have been settled, and there are some questions that haven’t been settled. Yours here is one of the former.

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I apologize for the confusion. Hansen was a research associate at Columbia University at the time of the article in 1971. Rasool, in his research, used a computer program model developed by Hansen.

Hansen's model either was wrong then or he his wrong now. Like I wrote it would be nice if he came forward and explained how he came to new conclusions.

Please understand the model in question was developed for the planet Venus, and the correlation to Earth climate was nothing but a Hypothesis..as stated by the scientist who placed it on the table.

Regardless, the main point is still on the table. Is global warming and it cause worthy of discussion and further scientific evaluation or has the question been settled?

Healthy debate is always a worthwhile venture, but for the most part the issue of "If" its a reality that our climate is changing has indeed been settled.
{added}

I re-read what I wrote and actually think it is clear. I asked if it was an error on his part, which is a legitimate question in the context of his involvement. And given his model, it appears to be wrong given his current position. He should explain the discrepancy or explain why his model then did not support the conclusions drawn from it. All fair and reasonable comments on my part.

Again...please recognize the intent of the Model.

What bothers me is the name calling when someone even suggests the possibility that the globe is not warming or that "man" may not be directly responsible. I think Hansen's model then and his views now illustrate how important it is to have an open mind on the subject, because after all, most of the data indicating correlations and predicting future trends are based on assumptions built into models.

I may be missing it, but at no point did I intentionally call you a name, in fact I dont resort to such tactics as a rule. Those that do such things tend to discredit themselves in a debate.

Questioning scientific findings is commonly accepted in the scientific community, if you have a problem with that - it is your issue.

I was not questioning the science, rather your interpretation of the Data. Quite simply put you are incorrect in the assumption that Hansen made any claim whatsoever in your post. The article (and you) try to tie him into a hypothesis put forward by another scientist simply based on the fact he created a computer model of Venusian climate used in the data stream...that makes no sense to me, and I felt it needed to be corrected.

aceventura3 · 09-25-2007, 09:01 AM

This is pretty simple. All he needs to do is give details on the model he used in '71 and how it was used to come to the conclusion that the earth was cooling. If people used his model to support conclusions that he did not support, I agree that I need to apologize for mis characterizing his work. I have not seen anything where Hansen says his work in 1971 was used without his permission, used inaccurately, or used to support a conclusion he had a problem with. For the time being I will stand by my original question - is this another error?

I have not interpreted his data. I have not even seen his data. All I ask his for him to come forward and clarify this conflict. I asked if anyone has seen where he has done this. Again, all I have done is ask questions and ask for information. Why do you guys have a problem with that? What is wrong with Hansen coming forward and explaining himself? why would he let this issue get bigger than it needs to be, when all he needs to do is address the issue? Perhaps all is needed is for him to explain why the conditions on Venus are not consistent with those on earth in the context of the affects of solar heat absorption.

Raveneye, you again say the issue is settled. On what basis or model is the question settled? Why don't you think we will be revisiting that model forty years from now? And if we do, don't we have a right to ask the authors of those models to explain why those models missed the mark if wrong.

Hansen is a man who makes strong provocative statements. Pretty much saying we have 10 years or else. And I am called to task for asking questions. Wow!

Quote:

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen has a theory that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml
And he says his message is being blocked. Since he is one of the "leading authorities on global climate change" perhaps someone in the media might want to sit down and talk to him and ask him a few questions.

P.S. The above quote is from July 2006. So now we have less than 9 years.

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 09:28 AM

OK...One last time

Mr Hansen was not responsible for the article you seem to be using as a source....OK? It all goes back to a NYTimes article highlighting a hypothesis outlined in a science journal. The author used a climate model developed by hansen to study the clouds of VENUS, for part of the data he used to develop the hypothesis.

Quote:

The Post archives do indeed identify the existence of such a
piece, with the following preview:

The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a
disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts.
Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and Columbia University says that...

The Times piece continued:

The scientist was S.I. Rasool, a colleague of Mr. Hansen's at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article goes
on to say that Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by
resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr.
Hansen that studied clouds above Venus.

The 1971 article, discovered this week by Washington resident
John Lockwood while he was conducting related research at the
Library of Congress, says that "in the next 50 years" - or by
2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere
"could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature
could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new
glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas."

It turns out the Post was referring specifically to an article
published at the journal Science that day, which was written by
Rasool and S. H. Schneider.

Science archives identified the following abstract of the piece
entitled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of
Large Increases on Global Climate," and indicated the authors
were from "Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight
Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration" (emphasis
added):

Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon
dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have
been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature,
the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net
effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface
temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of
the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented
with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of
4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to
reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If
sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature
decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to
trigger an ice age.

You are asking someone to explain a hypothesis he never forwarded.

aceventura3 · 09-25-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Mr Hansen was not responsible for the article you seem to be using as a source....OK?

Please. I never said he was responsible for the article.

Quote:

It all goes back to a NYTimes article highlighting a hypothesis outlined in a science journal. The author used a climate model developed by hansen to study the clouds of VENUS, for part of the data he used to develop the hypothesis.

My question to Hasen - why did you allow your work to be used in the manner in which it was used? Did you agree with its use? Did you allow its use? Did you support the conclusions drawn from its use? Was it used inappropriately to draw erroneous conclusions? Were you aware it was being used? Etc, Etc., Etc, I think he was aware and I think he cooperated with the study and supported its conclusions. I have not seen anything to disprove my thought, and I asked if there has been something, and I get non-responsive comments. So I further believe there has not been anything published reconciling the issue. Then I suggest for him to step forward and address the issue. What is the big deal?

Quote:

You are asking someone to explain a hypothesis he never forwarded.

He is the (or "a") leading authority on "global warming". And as the leading authority isn't it reasonable to expect him to be able to address various theories? Especially, theories his work helped shape. Now he has the view that in 9 years the damage we do will not be able to be corrected, almost like saying the world as we know it will end in 9 years. All I want to do is debate the issue. So, redirecting the issue back to me does not mean the questions will not go away. They won't go away even if we stop our exchange. It goes back to the pat response of - how dare someone question the overwhelming scientific data that says humans are responsible for climate change on this planet. Forgive me for for not "buying it" without question and the desire to understand how people came to their conclusions. Perhaps more people around here should start reading footnotes and take an interest in methodology before drawing conclusions.

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 10:53 AM

Seriously Ace, I gotta give up because you just dont seem to get it. The Guy made a freakin computer program that another guy used to say there "Might" be an Ice Age if certrain conditions match one of the thousands of models created by the program.
Its like asking the guy that works on a Graphics Engine for nVidia why he let them make Halo3.

I give in....bit will never agree with your premis.

aceventura3 · 09-25-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Seriously Ace, I gotta give up because you just dont seem to get it. The Guy made a freakin computer program that another guy used to say there "Might" be an Ice Age if certrain conditions match one of the thousands of models created by the program.
Its like asking the guy that works on a Graphics Engine for nVidia why he let them make Halo3.

I give in....bit will never agree with your premis.

If that's the way you see it, I understand your frustration. I think Hansen's involvement was more direct.

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If that's the way you see it, I understand your frustration. I think Hansen's involvement was more direct.

OK....hows this.

I request you provide information that shows he indeed, was actively involved in the creation of this hypothesis. Anything you can provide me that might show he had a hand in the scientific paper in question, or even the underlying hypothesis.

This seems fair as you are asking us to provide information that indicates he can explain his belief in the Ice Age hypothesis, though I havent found anything that shows he ever did.

aceventura3 · 09-25-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

OK....hows this.

I request you provide information that shows he indeed, was actively involved in the creation of this hypothesis. Anything you can provide me that might show he had a hand in the scientific paper in question, or even the underlying hypothesis.

This seems fair as you are asking us to provide information that indicates he can explain his belief in the Ice Age hypothesis, though I havent found anything that shows he ever did.

I can not provide anything other than the report that his model was used to support a conclusion that he does not currently support. That is the basis of my questioning this.

raveneye · 09-25-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

I can not provide anything other than the report that his model was used to support a conclusion that he does not currently support. That is the basis of my questioning this.

And that means absolutely nothing.

His model was published. The equations were written out in his paper. The Rasool paper cited his paper, and used some of his equations. So what? People cite each other all the time. People discuss and extend each other's results all the time. That's how science works.

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 12:26 PM

And you dont see the disconnect here?

If I held the patent on a fuse...and it was used to make a bomb that blew up a plane, would I be charged with plotting the bombing?

If you made a computer program, and it was used to develop a nasty internet virus which killed my harddrive, should I simply assume you did it?

aceventura3 · 09-25-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

And that means absolutely nothing.

His model was published. The equations were written out in his paper. The Rasool paper cited his paper, and used some of his equations. So what? People cite each other all the time. People discuss and extend each other's results all the time. That's how science works.

O.k. so now we are focused on the basis of my question. If Hensen's model suggested that the heat retention properties of CO2 causes warming and has made Venus the hottest planet in our solar system, how could his model be used to support an Ice Age theory? A correct scientific model or formula should produce the same results no matter who uses it. That is how science really works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

And you dont see the disconnect here?

If I held the patent on a fuse...and it was used to make a bomb that blew up a plane, would I be charged with plotting the bombing?

If you made a computer program, and it was used to develop a nasty internet virus which killed my harddrive, should I simply assume you did it?

If I develop a formula for calculating the force of gravity. A rocket scientist should be able to use it to determine how much thrust is need to send a rocket into orbit. If the rocket fails to reach orbit, it is possible that the rocket scientist is wrong in some of his work and it is possible that my formula is wrong. Isn't it appropriate to revisit the issue and look at all the components that went into the failure?

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

O.k. so now we are focused on the basis of my question. If Hensen's model suggested that the heat retention properties of CO2 causes warming and has made Venus the hottest planet in our solar system, how could his model be used to support an Ice Age theory? A correct scientific model or formula should produce the same results no matter who uses it. That is how science really works.

If the model used only one parameter, it would not only me a very poor model, but would also fit the criteria you just explained. All climate models take into consideration far more variables, and thus require computers to extrapolate usable data. Though I dont know the details of the hypothesis, it is likely the focus was on cloud cover changes vs. CO2 concentrations as in Earth based models of today.
Yet you still attribute the Ice Age hypothesis to the wrong individual, and refuse to address the simple issue of "Why", other than to say you "think" he was involved more deeply than documentation dictates. Then when asked to back up what you think.....you cannot do so.

Why should we then, take your assumption seriously?

raveneye · 09-25-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

O.k. so now we are focused on the basis of my question. If Hensen's model suggested that the heat retention properties of CO2 causes warming and has made Venus the hottest planet in our solar system, how could his model be used to support an Ice Age theory? A correct scientific model or formula should produce the same results no matter who uses it. That is how science really works.

Uh, because there aren't any people on Venus emitting sulfur aerosols, like there are on Earth?

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

If I develop a formula for calculating the force of gravity. A rocket scientist should be able to use it to determine how much thrust is need to send a rocket into orbit. If the rocket fails to reach orbit, it is possible that the rocket scientist is wrong in some of his work and it is possible that my formula is wrong. Isn't it appropriate to revisit the issue and look at all the components that went into the failure?

Actually "Real" science is far more complicated than that, which is why specializatioon becomes required. The models we are talking about use far too many parts to be deeply understood by any one scientist. It may very well be the hypothesis was focused on limited Data to get a more detailed result on a subject....leaving out other possible outcomes. More likely the input was varied continuously to mimick climate changes and the mean variants measured for the results. I think you might not fully understand what a climate model truly is....Hell I dont, and I have studied them.

aceventura3 · 09-25-2007, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Why should we then, take your assumption seriously?

Which assumption are you talking about? You have me confused because it seems like you are responding to issues I am not bringing up.

Here is a link to some if not all of Hansen's published research going back to 1966. If his work was used to drawn incorrect conclusions, I would think he would have a problem with that. In the 80's he seems to start to take a more direct approach to discussing climate change.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html

Sometimes I surprise some people on what I understand. Often my questions are intended to cut to the core of an issue.

tecoyah · 09-25-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Which assumption are you talking about? You have me confused because it seems like you are responding to issues I am not bringing up.

Here is a link to some if not all of Hansen's published research going back to 1966. If his work was used to drawn incorrect conclusions, I would think he would have a problem with that. In the 80's he seems to start to take a more direct approach to discussing climate change.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html

Sometimes I surprise some people on what I understand. Often my questions are intended to cut to the core of an issue.

Then I am confused I think. From what I have read I get the issue you are bringing up as inconsistencies in the Ideas put forward by Mr Hansen. I have spent the better part of this page trying to explain that he did not put the Ice Age Idea on tha table, as I believed you expressed he had. If this is not the case, then it seems you are simply stating that by virtue of his research being used by another scientist to create a hypothesis, he must then also believe in said hypothesis. Is that correct?
Might it also be possible (though I certainly dont know), that the clarity you note in the 80's was due to the very use of his research you have taken issue with? And if so, I think that might very well be his answer to the question you raise, and likely the only one you will get. Its not likely the man will try to explain why he changed his mind....if he didn't.

ottopilot · 09-26-2007, 08:42 AM

dc_dux · 09-26-2007, 09:11 AM

LOL....another "objective" IBD editorial, but not as good as the one called "Apocalypse Cow" which downplays the human impact, misrepresents a UN study and blames cow flatulence.

But even given the fact (?) that Hansen may have received $750,000 from Soros for "media packaging" (whatever that means), the research in question is NASA research.....which one could reasonably believe is more objective than the multitude of global warming debunking studies, with $millions of funding from Exxon-Mobile Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, the George T Marshall Institute, et al.

More "grist for the mill: Look at the funding of five prominent global warming skeptics

And lets not forget the political contributions of big oil, mostly to support members of Congress who are global warming skeptics, opposed to funding alternative energy r&d, and are "big oil friendly" on related energy/environment issues....amounting to over $100 million in the last four election cycles.

aceventura3 · 09-26-2007, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Then I am confused I think. From what I have read I get the issue you are bringing up as inconsistencies in the Ideas put forward by Mr Hansen. I have spent the better part of this page trying to explain that he did not put the Ice Age Idea on tha table, as I believed you expressed he had. If this is not the case, then it seems you are simply stating that by virtue of his research being used by another scientist to create a hypothesis, he must then also believe in said hypothesis. Is that correct?
Might it also be possible (though I certainly dont know), that the clarity you note in the 80's was due to the very use of his research you have taken issue with? And if so, I think that might very well be his answer to the question you raise, and likely the only one you will get. Its not likely the man will try to explain why he changed his mind....if he didn't.

Hansen is a very intelligent person and for the most part credible. In the '70's there was scientific based concerns about global cooling due to human activity, rather than global warming. People continued research, they continued to question and continued to debate the issue, it was not an issue deemed as settled. Hansen clearly continued his work. At the time he was either silent on the issue of climate change or had not made up his mind - to the best of my knowledge. However, we do know his work was used to support the work of people who believed the globe was cooling. If the question is settled, perhaps Hansen can further clarify how his current modeling, which suggests we have 9 years, can be used with a higher degree of certainty than models developed in the 70's.

Again, all I really suggest is that he come forward and answer questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

LOL....another "objective" IBD editorial, but not as good as the one called "Apocalypse Cow" which downplays the human impact, misrepresents a UN study and blames cow flatulence.

But even given the fact (?) that Hansen may have received $750,000 from Soros for "media packaging" (whatever that means), the research in question is NASA research.....which one could reasonably believe is more objective than the multitude of global warming debunking studies, with $millions of funding from Exxon-Mobile Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, the George T Marshall Institute, et al.

More "grist for the mill: Look at the funding of five prominent global warming skeptics

And lets not forget the political contributions of big oil, mostly to support members of Congress who are global warming skeptics, opposed to funding alternative energy r&d, and are "big oil friendly" on related energy/environment issues....amounting to over $100 million in the last four election cycles.

On both sides of the issue, the money involved, is a good reason for people to make their work transparent for all to see and review.

We have already had people requesting information on temperature modeling algorithms from NASA that Hansen did not provide. Perhaps he had a good reason, but the issue was on the table and not responded to. Given the current climate (pardon the pun) transparency in the discussion will only help, in spite of the fact that many believe the issue is settled..

dc_dux · 09-26-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

On both sides of the issue, the money involved, is a good reason for people to make their work transparent for all to see and review.

We have already had people requesting information on temperature modeling algorithms from NASA that Hansen did not provide. Perhaps he had a good reason, but the issue was on the table and not responded to. Given the current climate (pardon the pun) transparency in the discussion will only help, in spite of the fact that many believe the issue is settled..

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is probably the most open and peer reviewed of any and it has no corporate or special interest funding.

If you havent read it, I would suggest reading the most recent "Summary for Policymakers" that addresses the human and natural drivers of climate change.

For an additional objective analysis, an FAQ on the IPCC report is available from the US Climate Change Science Project, including a section (2.1) "How do human activities contribute to climate change and How do they compare with natural influence" (link)

Rekna · 09-26-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I can not provide anything other than the report that his model was used to support a conclusion that he does not currently support. That is the basis of my questioning this.

So what you are saying is that you have knowingly committed libel? Back up your statements or withdraw them.

dc_dux · 09-26-2007, 10:16 AM

Yesterday, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Bush's top science policy advisor) said he “strongly agrees” with the IPCC reports and “supports its conclusions and it was an “unequivocal” fact that climate change is man-made and that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are to blame.

The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact.

Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.

The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said, but he labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as "arbitrary"....

....There may still be some members of the White House team who are not completely convinced about climate change - but it is clear that the science advisor to the President and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is not one of them.

In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame.

Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be.

"And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."

...This is an explicit endorsement of the latest major review of climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

Quote:

If the question is settled.....

There may not be unanimity, but there is broad consensus among scientists and government policy makers around the world that there are significant human contributions to global warming.

The debate should be how to respond in a way that is reasonable and supports both environmental and economical sustainability.

aceventura3 · 09-26-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

So what you are saying is that you have knowingly committed libel? Back up your statements or withdraw them.

Cool. That is a first, being accused of libel. I should start keeping a log of these milestones.

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that I am guilty of libel, but I am sure you will let me know (even if it is off topic). If you prove your case, I will apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Yesterday, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Bush's top science policy advisor) said he “strongly agrees” with the IPCC reports and “supports its conclusions and it was an “unequivocal” fact that climate change is man-made and that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are to blame.

Wow. 90% is a big percent, but it is still less than 100%. So, in our new science 90% becomes "unequivocal"?

dc_dux · 09-26-2007, 10:23 AM

ok....I guess you dont want to focus on solutions until its 100% certain but would rather keep rehashing your concern about how a model was used 30 years ago.

sapiens · 09-26-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Wow. 90% is a big percent, but it is still less than 100%. So, in our new science 90% becomes "unequivocal"?

In science, you never reach 100% certainty. There is always doubt that the effect you have discovered is not real. Most sciences have an agreed upon level of doubt which they accept. In my field (Psychology) that doubt (also called "alpha") is usually acceptable if it is less that 5 %. If alpha is less that 5%, we call the effect statistically significant.

I am hesitant to dismiss the research discussed in the post you cite based on what appears to be a subjective assessment of "90%" that isn't directly quoted from the professor. I haven't seen the primary sources. I suspect that those studies must have reached statistical significance for them to be mentioned.

aceventura3 · 09-26-2007, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ok....I guess you dont want to focus on solutions until its 100% certain but would rather keep rehashing your concern about how a model was used 30 years ago.

I make decisions and judgments on less than 100% certainty. I just found the information you posted humerus given some of the past exchanges on the Iraq war and the level of certainty concerning WMD, for example.

Everyone is missing the point on the model used in '71 and how new information lead to new conclusions. Consider it dropped from my point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

In science, you never reach 100% certainty. There is always doubt that the effect you have discovered is not real. Most sciences have an agreed upon level of doubt which they accept. In my field (Psychology) that doubt (also called "alpha") is usually acceptable if it is less that 5 %. If alpha is less that 5%, we call the effect statistically significant.

Is that level of error acceptable in all forms of science? Of course not, there is not always doubt.

In your field how did they determine that <5% statistically significant rather than 0? Probably because there are unknown variables that can not be controlled for in every circumstance. As this concept applies to climate models, there are also variables that cannot be controlled for and 90% certainty may be as good as it can get, I understand that. But, the earth may be like one of those patients that doesn't respond the way normal modeling would predict. And we may still be in the relative dark-ages when it comes to understanding climate change on this planet.

ottopilot · 09-26-2007, 11:48 AM

sapiens · 09-26-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Is that level of error acceptable in all forms of science? Of course not, there is not always doubt.

In your field how did they determine that <5% statistically significant rather than 0? Probably because there are unknown variables that can not be controlled for in every circumstance. As this concept applies to climate models, there are also variables that cannot be controlled for and 90% certainty may be as good as it can get, I understand that. But, the earth may be like one of those patients that doesn't respond the way normal modeling would predict. And we may still be in the relative dark-ages when it comes to understanding climate change on this planet.

There is always doubt in all science, or more generally, in the universe. It is mathematically impossible to have an alpha level equal to zero. The level of alpha you consider depends on what you are looking for and the costs an benefits of false-negatives and false-positives (among other issues). Wikipedia provides a reasonable summary of the issues surrounding statistic significance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Again, I suspect that the primary sources have found effects with alphas <10%. I also expect that the sizes of the effects they have found are large enough to consider important. I am interested in the primary sources, but I don't have the time to go searching for them. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that because there is always doubt and we don't know everything, we should ignore what we do know.

raveneye · 09-26-2007, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Again, all I really suggest is that he come forward and answer questions.

All your questions are answered in great detail in his published papers.

Have you read any of them?

Quote:

Wow. 90% is a big percent, but it is still less than 100%. So, in our new science 90% becomes "unequivocal"?

No, unequivocal means effectively 100%.

Apparently you haven't read the IPCC report yet.

aceventura3 · 09-26-2007, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

All your questions are answered in great detail in his published papers.

Have you read any of them?

No, unequivocal means effectively 100%.

Apparently you haven't read the IPCC report yet.

I have read the reports. All questions have not been answered. In fact the IPCC report states that climate change is dynamic with or without human impact. They further state that there are three main considerations that could have an impact on climate change, greenhouse gases is one of the three. One question that has not been answered is, given the interplay between the variables affecting our climate what is the determining factor that will make one variable so dominate that off-setting variables won't compensate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

There is always doubt in all science, or more generally, in the universe.

You are telling me that I can not, for example, calculate the force of gravity with absolute certainty?

I am open to unlearning my preconceived notions of some forms of physics, chemistry and math. If you are generally saying that there is uncertainty in some math concepts, I guess I agree, but if you are saying there is uncertainty in every math concept, I don't understand how you say that.

raveneye · 09-26-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

I have read the reports.

Then where did you get the idea that unequivocal means 90%? I don't see it anywhere in my copy. What did you mean by "our new science" when you said "So, in our new science 90% becomes 'unequivocal'?" Can you quote me the relevant passage in your version of the report you read?

Quote:

All questions have not been answered.

I was referring to your questions about Dr. James Hansen. I repeat: all your questions about him he has answered himself in his own publications, in great scientific detail. Have you read any of them?

Quote:

One question that has not been answered is, given the interplay between the variables affecting our climate what is the determining factor that will make one variable so dominate that off-setting variables won't compensate?

What compensating variables? Reference? Who told you this?

If you are seriously interested in learning about the predominance of positive feedbacks, you could start by reading Dr. Hansen's most recent publication, which you can access here:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c...462k7p4068780/

09-25-2007, 10:53 AM	#54 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Seriously Ace, I gotta give up because you just dont seem to get it. The Guy made a freakin computer program that another guy used to say there "Might" be an Ice Age if certrain conditions match one of the thousands of models created by the program. Its like asking the guy that works on a Graphics Engine for nVidia why he let them make Halo3. I give in....bit will never agree with your premis. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-25-2007, 12:26 PM	#59 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	And you dont see the disconnect here? If I held the patent on a fuse...and it was used to make a bomb that blew up a plane, would I be charged with plotting the bombing? If you made a computer program, and it was used to develop a nasty internet virus which killed my harddrive, should I simply assume you did it? __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-26-2007, 08:42 AM	#66 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	NASA scientist James Hansen received $720,00 from George Soros edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:35 AM..

09-26-2007, 09:11 AM	#67 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	LOL....another "objective" IBD editorial, but not as good as the one called "Apocalypse Cow" which downplays the human impact, misrepresents a UN study and blames cow flatulence. But even given the fact (?) that Hansen may have received $750,000 from Soros for "media packaging" (whatever that means), the research in question is NASA research.....which one could reasonably believe is more objective than the multitude of global warming debunking studies, with $millions of funding from Exxon-Mobile Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, the George T Marshall Institute, et al. More "grist for the mill: Look at the funding of five prominent global warming skeptics And lets not forget the political contributions of big oil, mostly to support members of Congress who are global warming skeptics, opposed to funding alternative energy r&d, and are "big oil friendly" on related energy/environment issues....amounting to over $100 million in the last four election cycles. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-26-2007 at 09:29 AM.. Reason: added link

09-26-2007, 10:23 AM	#73 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ok....I guess you dont want to focus on solutions until its 100% certain but would rather keep rehashing your concern about how a model was used 30 years ago. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-26-2007 at 10:27 AM..

08-27-2007, 05:09 PM	#41 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	It regulated through thousand year cycles of increased Ice cover. But how did an ice age start when it was too hot? What triggered it? Did the solar output of energy or something change? We Don't....there is no mood to repair. That isn't exactly correct. We do have ways to cultivate algee and come up with other ways to remove CO2. It would be easier to reduce it bwfore it got too far out of control, but I think humans would be able to come up with something. Teh problem is that there is no money to be made by gathering C02 without a carbon market where you need to pay to polute, but can get money back by cleaning up the environment. Die....but not everyone...heh. As long as it isn't me, I won't have a problem with that. 6.2 billion people breathing has to create some level of CO2 by itself. The temperature could go up another 20F or an ice age could happen and I would be fine. Or at least could survive longer than the other people looking for food.

09-26-2007, 11:48 AM	#76 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	edit Last edited by ottopilot; 12-27-2007 at 08:34 AM..