Friday, October 06, 2006

Lots of climate change announcements...

At a climate change symposium in Helengrad today, Climate Change Minister David Parker told the audience that climate change is happening. "Climate change is happening now," said the excited minister, and then announced several measures to "reduce carbon dioxide emissions" including a "price-based measure across the economy." For this he expects to get headlines and adulation.

Greenpeace agreed that climate change is happening, declared that "everyone's talking about the need to make major reductions of greenhouse gases," and went on to castigate the minister for not doing enough to shackle industry. For this they expect to get headlines and a smattering of new and renewed donations for their staunchness.

Later this afternoon and as part of the same symposium, Nick Smith on behalf of the Blue Green Group of Wetness will agree with both that climate change is happening, and declare that his party agrees with Mr Parker in absolutely every way except the means by which industry is to be shackled. For this he hopes to get a job as Environment Minister in the next National cabinet.

Over the weekend the Blue Green Group of Wetness will be watching (avidly no doubt) Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (about which, more below), which asserts without fear of contradiction that climate change is happening, that the last decade has had all the hottest years ever so it really must be happening, and that we have but a few short years to get our shit in order if we're to avert a real catastrophe. For this, the Blue Greens probably hope for an hour or two to nod off, while Al Gore without a doubt harbours hopes of piles of money and a chance for a go at being the former next President of the US twice.

All of these local groups have no doubt harked back the announcement earlier in the week by a smug twit from the Ministry of the Environment who declared that the "Earth is getting warmer faster, due largely to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity."

Meanwhile, in more sober climes, Professor Bob Carter points out in a paper released by the Climate Science Coalition [pdf] (and still unpublished in any NZ newspaper) that,
the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia [show] that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero.)
You can see the inconvenient truth for yourself in the graph below:

Global average temperatures since 1998 (Climate Research Unit, UK)

So if climate change is happening, as just "everyone" says it is, it doesn't seem to be happening in the real world. I wonder then just exactly where it is happening? If climate is happening, let alone "dangerous" and "catastrophic" global warming, the place to see that would be in the temperature records, right? And it'd be more than clear, right?

Oh, and speaking of inconvenient truths, the Competitive Enterprise Institute have produced a 120-page PDF 'Skeptic's Guide to An Inconveneient Truth.' If you're going to the Blue Greens conference this weekend and you do decide to watch it, you could print out a bunch of copies and either see how the Skeptic's Guide stacks up against the celluloid claims of the man who used to have presidential aspirations, or you could just use them to beat Nick Smith around the head.

Either way, they'd be well-used.

UPDATE: For those expressing reservations about the CRU graph above representing too short a period, Junk Science has compiled and put into graphic form a bunch of data sets for the entire period in which temperature records have been kept: Catastrophic warming? You decide. And do make sure you read all of Carter's piece, since he also addresses this point. From Junk Science, 'The Real Inconvenient Truth':

Who says it is warming catastrophically? Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. As we've already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth's temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004. We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic warming while people have been trying to measure the planet's temperature. If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for "hottest ever in recorded history" should happen just about every year -- although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about -- so there's really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when looking at such a short history.

At risk of belaboring the point, the following data is from the merged land air and sea surface temperature data set (based on data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of land temperatures and the Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (COADS) of SST data). This is the Time series: Temperature January-December, 1880 - 2005: Global Trend: 0.04 °C/decade (for the arithmetically-challenged that's 12.5 decades for a total of +0.5 °C since 1880). The land temperature-only data (less than 30% of the planet and usually measured around cities) yields a trend of 0.07 °C/decade over the same period for a total increment of 0.875 °C.

A lot of people seem to like an idea of a specific temperature number so here's the National Climatic Data Center's monthly mean temperature record. Rather obviously seasonal change throughout the year dwarfs net increment over one and one-quarter centuries.

Read on here.

LINKS: NZ TO seek links with Asia-Pacific climate group - Radio NZ
The global warming Emperor has no clothes - Professor Bob Carter, courtesy of Climate Science Coalition [9-page PDF]
Skeptic's guide to An Inconvenient Truth - Competitive Enterprise Institute [120-page PDF]
The real 'inconvenient truth' - Junk Science

RELATED: Global Warming, Politics-NZ, Science

Labels: , ,

7 Comments:

Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Ministry of the Environment who declared...

["Earth is getting warmer faster, due largely to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity."]

Here is a fact:
----------------
"Earth is getting warmer"

Here is speculation & fiction:
------------------------------
"Earth is getting warmer faster, due largely to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity."


Now, I am one of those that perhaps could be called a denier by Green Peace even though I am not a weather scientist.

Yes, I am a denier, not because I heard it in the newspaper, TV, internet search & chat or from the "NZ Climate Science Coalition", but because Falafulu has read some of the peer review scientific papers that the pro-warming scare mongering nutters & alarmists have portrayed them as facts caused by human activities.

Not one peer paper that has shown a single citation between this causal relationship of warming and human activities. Everything assumed to be true from the pro-warming camp come from indirect inferences in their data analysis & computer models.

Here is an equation of temperature variability that frequently quoted by the pro-warming scientist:

c*dT/dt = F(t) - lambda*T

c - effective heat capacity
T - temperature
lambda - constant for feedback parameter
F(t) - time dependent forcing function (this function could be caused by anything).


Function 'F(t)' can be linear or non-linear, depending on the model considered by the climate scientist. Function 'F(t)' is also the model that supposes to cause temperature dependency as a result of human activities. The solution for the "first order differential equation" shown above is easy to solve if function 'F(t)' a linear function and it is more harder to solve if function 'F(t)' is non-linear. The real world has a non-linear inter-dependency including climate change phenomena, however most pro-warming scientists treat the whole equation as a linear model, which simplifies the true non-linear world into a linear one, which is really a naive way of thinking. Treating the model as linear simplifies the task, which ONLY works in a small domain. What is needed is a model that generalizes that applies in all domains.

There is one important thing that is missing from the equation above. Can you spot that?

Yep, the inter-dependencies amongst other variables that have an effect in the evolving dynamical climate systems are missing. To model the climate as dynamical systems, you need as many equations that couple one another to others, which depends on how many climate variables that which affects the climate directly or indirectly.

I am not saying that the one equation shown above is wrong, I am saying that it should be a MIMO systems (multiple input & multiple output) with multiple equations, which reflect the reality & Physics of different climate variables. The one equation model shown above is a SISO system (single input & single output). The input is the function 'F(t)' and the output is the variable 'T' which is the temperature. 'T' is found by solving the first order differential equation above for a closed-form solution, ONLY if function 'F(t)' is linear. If 'F(t)' is non-linear then a closed solution is always not found, where numerical computer modelling is applied to find a solution.

FACTS:
---------
#1). The function 'F(t)' has different interpretations and there is no agreed formulation for 'F(t)'. One might choose to have 'F(t)' = A*Sin(t); a sine-wave function multiplied by an amplitude 'A' or one chooses to have 'F(t)' = b*T ; proportion to temperature multiplicable term 'b', and so forth.

#2). The simple equation shown above is a SISO model while the real world is truly MIMO and also truly non-linear.


CONCLUSION:
-------------------
The civilization’s future depends on the prediction of the equation above as the proponents of the global warming say. However one does not need to take advance calculus courses to figure out that this one equation is not enough to predict the fate of humanity, which is a way of naïve thinking.

10/06/2006 04:47:00 pm  
Blogger KG said...

Toaday's "Stuff" poll question is: "Is New Zealand starting to suffer the effects of climate change"
Incredibly, 65% say yes!
Proof that lies and spin will win out over real science every time.
*sigh*

10/07/2006 12:01:00 am  
Blogger KG said...

typos..damn.
"today's"

10/07/2006 12:02:00 am  
Blogger sagenz said...

do we really have to rely on the same bullshit statistics as those who would claim it as fact. using a table since 1998??? Get the feck outa here. 1998 is obviously a short term peak and the trend since 99 is upwards, but that completely ignores any decent long term trend

10/07/2006 12:45:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

"Bullshit"? "We"?

From the article:
"In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here?"


It certainly strikes the authors of the various computer warming models as odd, since their models have still yet to replicate the cooling-warming cycles of the twentieth-century without 'forcing' the figures artificially.

10/07/2006 12:08:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Falafulu Fisi said...
[#2). The simple equation shown above is a SISO model while the real world is truly MIMO and also truly non-linear.]

I thought I just might post this link here for a Block diagram of what functional relation of a MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output) systems look like. The MIMO system of a “Train” in the following link shows how feedback and signal flow are inter-related to "inputs" & "outputs".

“Simulink Modeling Tutorial”
http://www.library.cmu.edu/ctms/ctms/simulink/model/model.htm

Since the page for this link is too long, you might scroll down to the last diagram on the page at the bottom where there is a nice block diagram of a many-variables input & many-variables output (MIMO) inter-connected in a dynamical relationship.

Climate systems have an inter-connected many variables which can be model as the diagram shown in that page. I have seen a few papers that dynamical systems modelling (SISO & MIMO) are starting to appear from scientists working in climate change. The type of modelling was originated in "Control Systems Design" , but now scientists have realised that there are things or systems in this world that this modelling technique could be applied to. It has been applied to "Economics" , "Marketing" , "Social Networking" , "Biology" , "Physics" , "Climate" and so forth.

There are a lot of climate scientists who have no clue to dynamical MIMO systems modelling using state-space algorithms, especially the ones who are strong proponents of global warming. Most or all of those I have debated with on the Internet have never heard of dynamical MIMO systems "State-Space" modelling. So, you could figure out if you believe the single equation I quoted in my previous post or you can infer that the world is not a SISO (single input single output) dynamical systems depicted by the equation BUT really the world’s climate is a truly MIMO systems, where there are too many variables to be modelled. I will leave the rest for you to make your own inference. That is, believe the proponents with their ONE equation SISO model that says we are doomed or perhaps you might think that the world is more complex than their primitive model and deserve more complex modelling from the domain of "State-Space" feedback control which can solve MIMO systems.

The block diagrams would be familiar to those in this forum who were doing electrical engineering (Andrew Bates and them) particularly the paper in "Digital Control Systems", because it is the Matlab Simulink software that is discussed in that page above. Matlab is available at Auckland University Engineering School, Maths Department , Bioinformatics Department, Physics Department and I am not sure about the Economics Department if they have a license or not.

The good thing about MIMO dynamical systems modelling is that you change the mathematical function in any of the block and you immediately see the effect in the output signal.

The diagram looks like a circuit diagram, however if it is to broken down to a systems of equations, I estimate that it would be about 8 or 9 equations that describe the whole systems. I have not done a thorough analysis of it , but I just did a quick rough count. Again, the block diagram only shows a simple MIMO system. Number of variables can be many as 100,000 or more for climate modelling, but scientists have to first find those variables to be able to develop a correct model. Matlab software can deal with as high as 1,000,000 variables modelling but this depends on the memory of the machine.

FACT:
-------
Climate scientists have some vague or rough ideas of what those variables are, but HAVE NO CLUE to what are the other unknown ones out there that hasn’t been found.

So, the diagram can be represented in its mathematical form by a systems of 8 or 9 equations which they are inter-connected, meaning if you alter a variable in one of the equations, say equation #4 or equation #6 this will affects the output of all other remaining equations. This is similar to a food-chain dynamical systems. If you severely disturb one part of the systems , say kill all the rats in the world, then there will be consequences in other parts of the food-chain, where those parts will try to re-establish the dynamics by adapting to eat something else or their numbers will be diminished as there aren’t enough rats to eat from. This is what you call dynamic.

Climate system is exactly like that. Describing the climate system using a single equation is naive. It should be modelled using state-space dynamical MIMO systems, because there are tons of different variables that affect the climate.

“State Space Models - Tutorial”
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/filters/State_Space_Models.html

10/07/2006 07:51:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Falafulu Fisi said...

[There are a lot of climate scientists who have no clue to dynamical MIMO systems modelling using state-space algorithms, especially the ones who are strong proponents of global warming.]

Now, I've found the link below which definitely describes the shortfall of using SISO, because climate variables are coupled to each other. Their (climate variables) influence can occur simultaneously. This page also quoted that climate modeling is a highly non-linear process which complex models are needed to be developed, since SISO & linear model are misleading. This inter-dependencies of climate variables lends itself in the domain of MIMO dynamical systems modeling. Why, I quoted that most pro-warming scientists have no clue about MIMO dynamical systems state-space modeling is because none of those I have debated with on the internet have heard of those algorithms. I don't criticize them for not knowing because, this field originated in "Feed-back Control Systems" engineering, however I am alarmed at their so called "Global Warming" debate is final, at the same time, they have no clue to the dynamics of the climate. Well they might know some relationship based on one or two variables but those ones are not dynamical at all.

"WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE SYSTEM FEEDBACKS"
http://grp.giss.nasa.gov/reports/feedback.workshop.report.html

10/10/2006 07:14:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home