On Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:17:14 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
trader_4;3310356 Wrote:
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:42:25 PM UTC-5, dgk wrote:-
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 07:26:03 -0600, CRNG
wrote:
-
Indeed, A peer-reviewed climate change study released in Sept 2013 by
the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the
threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated
but so small as to be "embedded within the background variability of
the natural climate system" and not dangerous.-
'Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test |
Climate Science Watch' (http://tinyurl.com/jwfsqso)-
Not a very impressive reference. All they do is try to attack based on
who is behind the report challenging global warming. It's supposed to
be a
big surprise that those behind it are skeptical about man-made global
warming? The exact same thing could be said about the other side, the
true
believers. It would be a lot more credible if they challenged the
science,
instead of trying to smear the authors.
I did get a kick out of this though:
"The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and
organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most
recent climate change-related science."
IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ie the proponents
of
man-made global warming. They "synthesize" science? Interesting choice
of
words. What the hell is that? A freudian slip perhaps?
Trader:
No, the IPCC doesn't make synthetic climate. I expect what they're
referring to is the use of computer models to assess climate change.
Whatever it is, I've never heard of anyone saying they synthesize science,
have you?
Even when I was a petroleum engineer 30 years ago, we used main frame
computers to model reservoir behaviour. Basically, we would generate a
mathematical model of the reservoir under the ground with known rock
parameters at each well location and see if we could get the computer to
predict historical behaviour. That is, we would withdraw the known
production from each well and see if the computer would accurately
predict the pressure in the reservoir, the elevation of the gas/oil
interface and the water/oil interface. If we could manipulate the
unknown parameters into getting the computer to accurately predict
historical measured pressures and gas/oil and oil/water interface
elevations, then we could use that same model to predict how the
reservoir would behave if we were to produce it in different ways, such
as by implementing a water flood or perhaps a miscible flood. In that
way, we maximize the amount of oil produced from large reservoirs.
Climate scientists do the same thing. If they can get their computer
models to predict historically accurate global temperature increases,
then they can use that model to predict what will happen with the global
climate in the future under different scenarios, such as the world
moving from gasoline powered automobiles to electric automobiles over
the next 40 years, or by changing from coal burning electric generating
stations to nuclear reactors, for example.
So, when they say the IPCC "synthesizes climate change - related
science" it means that they use their computer models to see if
scientific claims about global warming are realistic or not, based on
whether their computer models agree with those claims.
They did the same thing back in the 70's. They had models, computers,
and they told us that we were entering a new ice age. Of course they
will tell you that the models and computers are much better now. They
said that in the 70's too. Any of those models are only as good as the
guesses that go into making them. And as others here have pointed out,
if you're a manmade global warming skeptic and you want $20mil in govt
funds to work on a model, what do you think your chances of getting funded
are?
Even 30 years ago, the people in computer reservoir simulation business
were aware that computer climate models were amongst the most computer
intensive applications of computer modelling that there was. 30 years
ago, it took days and even weeks of time on a mainframe computer to run
a single computer simulation, and so it was only universities and
governments who owned their own computers that could afford to use them
for climate modeling. Tying up a piece of equipment like a computer
that cost 20 million dollars for a week would have been prohibitively
expensive for independant or privately funded climate researchers.
AFAIK, it's still the same, nothing has changed. And if you're a skeptic,
how much funding do you think you get? Forget about funding, you'd be
lucky to still have your job.