Guest essay by Howard Lowe
Mother Earth is a dynamic place, constantly changing and evolving. Although it operates in a cyclical manner, the major cycles are not short, falling into a time frame of thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of years. We know that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west on a regular 24-hour cycle, but times vary depending on the season of the year. The Earth revolves around the Sun, and the Moon around the Earth, all in a cyclical predictable manner. These phenomena have always intrigued man leading him to seek more knowledge about his surroundings, about the star-filled skies, about his origin, about the future.
For more than a hundred thousand years man has developed into a sophisticated creature, one with ever increasing scientific ‘know how’. Even after landing on the Moon man still dreams of worlds far beyond Earth and the Moon, and plans journeys into deep space. In preparation, he studies all manner of sciences to increase his knowledge of this home planet. One such effort deals with studies Earth’s past and present climates, and lastly prediction of future climates.
You will discover predicting long range climatic conditions have about the same chance of success as selecting next week’s six winning lottery numbers. Let’s look at weather. How about predicting the exact local rainfall next week? The dates, number, violence, and exact paths of Atlantic hurricanes for next season? Acquiring the skills and knowledge to predict such future climate and weather conditions with any degree of accuracy is still out into the future. To do so will require extremely complex data bases. Even then, random variance will hamper predictive capability. Data bases must include carefully controlled collections of geological, geophysical, meteorological, oceanographic, and biological information. Even though, the collection of data has vastly improved, the density and location of measurement sites in the oceans are still a weak link. However, the volume of data being collected by satellites is overcoming many of these weaknesses.
Many laymen and some scientists tend to over simplify this extremely complex problem. Let’s take a step back and look at the hundreds of different data types that must be collected and analyzed. Mathematical models are designed and constructed using formulae to massage and analyze data sets. The fewer the data points, the less reliable the answers. How about the reliability of the data? For example, only during the past century has accurate data been systematically recorded and collected on such things as temperature, rainfall, snowfall, flood, tides, and wind. Although a great deal of data was collected for many centuries, it was not done in a systematic manner, nor did it cover broad geographic regions. Therefore, much of these data are questionable due to poor collection practices; and in the less populated areas, collection sites are sparse, widely scattered, or non-existent.
How can ancient artifacts and cave drawings assist us in studying climate? Paleolithic cave drawings made over 40,000 years ago offer information on climatic conditions at that period of time, and must be considered. Later in time, written records from early civilizations offer information on crops, floods, droughts, snowfall, and detailed accounts of natural catastrophes. Additionally, archeological and anthropological sciences add valuable information about prehistory climates.
Rocks in the Earth’s crust carry a record of global climate changes. Over the past two centuries, geologists have been able to decipher a lot of the story rocks tell us. These geological studies have given us a good ‘peek’ at the Earth’s climatic conditions over hundreds of millions of years. Geological data have been collected and analyzed for thousands of specific locations, making it possible to determine the geological age of rocks, along with their fossil content. However, there are millions of such locations scattered across the globe that have never been examined by geologists. Even a huge organized effort cannot search out and record all of these locations – so, one can only connect widely spaced dots.
Ice cores recovered during drilling operations on glaciers and ice sheets offer scientists another glimpse into the past. Precise measurement of temperatures and atmospheres (gas bubbles) in the cores make it possible to establish climatic conditions for different geological times.
Oceanographic surveys, using sophisticated underwater exploration techniques, have come of age in the past few decades. Their findings add still more to our knowledge about the planet. Underwater exploration combines engineering technology with other scientific disciplines, such as geology, geophysics, oceanography, meteorology, and archeology. Once all of these data are collected, samples can be described and identified as to aerial location and depth. Based on these descriptions and measurements, a determination of their geologic age can be made. Retrieved archeological artifacts are described, offering additional climate clues. The task of correlating such a myriad of data types from widely spaced dots is a Herculean task. Remember the surface of today’s globe is 70% water; and its extent has varied geographically over time. How many unaccounted for dots might this include? Yes, thousands, maybe millions.
The need for deep-ocean exploration has been driven by offshore oil and gas drilling. Deep drilling platforms are located in ocean depths that reach over two miles. Large amounts of data acquired during drilling, along with deep-sea research programs, could throw new light on the movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates. Deep-ocean drilling programs are adding to our knowledge of bottom-ocean sediments, and deep-ocean life forms, along with study of the geological formations penetrated during drilling operations. Collected data include a photographic record, samples of water and sediments, drilling cuttings, and temperature and pressure measurements.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has initiated a deep-sea exploration program using the unmanned submersible vehicle, Nereus. On May 31, 2009, Nereus reached the sea floor at an amazing depth of 35,768 feet. The location was in the deepest part of the world’s oceans in the Mariana Trench. There the submersible spent ten hours making scientific measurements, gathering physical samples and taking photographs of the ocean’s bottom at a depth of seven miles[1].
Data from all the preceding scientific programs may make it possible to improve predictions about future climatic conditions. However, we must take into account the vastness of the atmosphere that surrounds our Earth, as well as the enormous extent of the seawater and seabed. Arriving at reasonable scientific conclusions, based on relatively few scattered data points, becomes as much an art as a science. Understand the problem?
No, we are still short many more factors. We must take into account the solar conditions that affect the Earth. These include the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, variations in the declination of the Earth’s axis, precession (wobble effect) of the Earth on this axis. Then there is the cyclical variation of sunspot activity on the Sun, and lastly, the effects of solar weather. To these, add meteor showers and collisions with rogue asteroids. Every one of these factors, and innumerable combinations of them, played roles of varying importance in the Earth’s climate changes in the past.
Are you beginning to understand the complexity of the predicting climatic conditions for tomorrow, or for a decade ahead? How about a hundred years? Unfortunately, the public has been misled by the statements of some scientists; those who we recently discovered either manipulated data, or relied on inadequate and/or unreliable data, to construct a doomsday model[2] for the Earth’s future. Such erroneous climate outcomes have been widely published by a gullible media, guided by a group of misguided uninformed environmental loons. The leaders of the movement have appointed themselves experts on global warming, not climate change. Their ravings are familiar – I often apply my pet phrase – Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up. Now, no amount of scientific evidence, to the contrary, will convince them that presently, no one can state with any assurance that the Earth is in either a long-term-warming or a long-term cooling trend. Nor will they accept that alteration of the Earth’s climate by unpredictable catastrophic events in the distant past occurred. These events include: 1) massive asteroid or meteor[3] collisions, 2) enormous volcanic eruptions that loaded the atmosphere with volcanic dust, or 3) violent earthquakes.
Real science is based on facts; theories developed by scientists are the basis for seeking solutions – made to be tested (proved or disproved). The correct answers are not determined by a vote of the majority, or consensus; they are determined by reality. Remember, the truth comes from building hypotheses and theories, then rigorously testing them against the data. Only by questioning hypotheses and theories can correct scientific conclusions be reached. However, remember that the data to back up the conclusion must also be adequate. Moreover, had man not exercised his intellectual curiosity it is doubtful if he would ever have progressed beyond the Stone Age.
Far too much emphasis has been placed on global warming and/or global cooling. Not enough on climatology. Not enough on testing the hypotheses. Not enough on research perforrmed by interdisciplinary scientific teams. The environmental activists’ tunnel vision is very simplistic. To them, the Earth will either have catastrophic heating or freezing. They give little thought about what might really be happening. Dr. Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography at Massachusetts Institution of Technology, said that he finds the statements of both extremes of the global climate-change debate distasteful. I go a step further – I find that arguing for either extreme is unscientific and beyond prudence and reason. Presently, the sciences of climatology and meteorology are in their infancy and predictions about future climates are flawed, and therefore, can only be classified as educated guesses, i.e., more accurately, hypotheses that must be tested, not yet theories.
I disagree with those who broadcast that the survival of man depends on our control of the Earth’s climate. They fail to take into account hundreds of intricately woven factors that affect climate; most are far beyond man’s ability to control. Man can only exert bare minimal control over the contents of the atmosphere and hydrosphere. He can improve the utilization and conservation of the Earth’s resources, and initiate methods to stabilize the Earth’s population. Unfortunately worldwide consensus is needed to address these issues. Do you believe we can get such a consensus from the world’s governments?
Excerpt from a not yet published, but copyrighted book by – Howard R. Lowe, PE & Prof. Petroleum Geologist. Title – Beyond Our Control – Debunking Manmade Global Warming.
In my opinion, the material contained in these few pages are very important to pass along to the uninitiated public who have been swamped with erroneous, inaccurate, and often deceptive information about climate. I hope you will consider publishing this in your website. If the material is noted as being part of an unpublished book; you do not need to make reference to the book. My name is sufficient (I am sending my full bio to verify my expertise).
References:
[1] In 1960 the US Navy’s manned bathyscaph made a dive of 35,800 feet in the Marianas Trench and stayed on bottom for 20 minutes.
[2] Mathematical models are based on the data input and can be manipulated quite easily to get predetermined results.
[3] Effects of an asteroid impact would be global if in the range of 6-7 miles in diameter; because a meteor moves much faster than an asteroid, a smaller meteor could just as much global disruption.
Howard Lowe is geologist, and a member of The Right Climate Stuff Research Group – a Houston group made up mainly of NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts who are man-made global warming skeptics.
To me it appears that they started with a weather program and converted it to simulate climate. They had to increased time and space sampling intervals so that the simulations could be completed in finite time. More CO2 causing warming was hard coded in so that is what the simulations show. The simulations may also be numerically unstable which affects the results. I have seen it often is this type of simulation. There is an underlying predictor corrector loop. When time is advanced each cell has to predict its future state in order to compute its affect on its neighboring cells. The future state is then computed based on the changes in the neighboring cells which them selves change. Because the values change each cell has to be recomputed in iterations until the different values between iterations is below a prescribed value. Increasing the time interval and the cell size may make the whole process unstable so that the results may be more a function of the numerical instability then of the model being simulated.
willhaas
No, today’s 23 general circulation models (now being strategically “re-branded” as Global Climate Models!) began as local climate mmodels studying the very local weather and dust movements and winds in a specific area: LA basin is one start, the nickel mining and smelting region of Canada, the Ohio River valley and Pittsburgh polluted valleys. They got LOTS of funding by arguing they could “solve” the “acid rain” invented problem across the eastern US, and epanded those “studies” to a sympathetic ear at the EPA and the US computer modeling groups out west in Boulder, CO. The ozone hole was “solved” next – both with more funding (creating more studies and yielding more “institutions” and new fancy campuses and buildings and computer labs in Boulder) which allowed/required other institutions to demand more computers and more funding from their Congressional prostitutes ……
But the foundation is still the dust particles and local weather/wind/temperature models of a single valley or plain. Its just that a “plain” can be expanded by programmers as far as the money permits. They may be valid for the LA basin – you still read papers touting the change of a vital “dust particle” parameter of some nanometer width getting “refined” into 6 more “accurate” estimates of an average dust particle.
For the globe? They are as valid as Trenberth’s flat earth model.
The difference between engineering computer modeling and scientific computer modeling is in engineering if your model predictions don’t match past known results when given past known inputs you are sent back to the proverbial showers. And you are told don’t come back until it does match. In science, or at least in climate science, if your model predictions don’t match past data you don’t even try to make it match. What you try to match is what the people giving you funding want to see.
even Wal-mart will fire you for turning out crap sales models.
In reply to:
jinghis May 13, 2015 at 4:34 pm
William,
Are you a troll? Are you making random comments for a purpose? Or do you just like silly talk with no connection to peer reviewed papers or observations?
The standard scientific method is to compare observations to model/theory predictions. This is critical analysis.
It is a fact that the observations (the fact that high latitudes of the earth warmed in the last 50 years rather than the tropical region of the warmed) supports the assertion that the IPCC general circulation models are incorrect. Pointing out the fact that observations unequivocally show (the pattern of warming observed does not match the pattern/signature of warming if CO2 was the forcing function) that the IPCC general circulation models are incorrect is not ‘skepticism’.
Observations/critical analysis supports the assertion that the IPCC models are incorrect. It can also be shown that there was a pathetic effort to hide the fact that the IPCC models are incorrect.
The ubiquitous toy model diagram that is presented by the cult of CAGW to provide a sciency explanation of the CO2 forcing, hides the fact there is a significant latitudinal variance in the amount of short wave radiation that strikes the earth (equator verses higher latitudes) as the earth is a sphere not a flat table. As the short wave solar energy is changed to long wave radiation the majority of the long wave radiation is also emitted in the tropics rather than at the poles.
Now as CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for CO2 greenhouse warming is the same for every latitude. The actual CO2 forcing is proportion to both amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in CO2.
The cult of CAGW used a silly toy flat earth model as they want to hide the fact that there has been almost no warming of the tropical region. Almost all of the warming in the last 50 years has been in high latitude regions rather than the tropics.
This disconnection between model predictions and observations is called the latitudinal warming paradox. A theory/model that is incorrect creates paradoxes. Observations do not agree with/support the IPCC’s theory/model predictions.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EnergyBudgetTF.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EnergyBudgetTF.jpg
This peer reviewed paper support the assertion that the fact that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years has been in high latitudes regions rather than in the tropical region supports the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
There are two basic observational facts that support that assertion:
1) The CO2 forcing is proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 has increased yet there is no increase in surface temperatures for 18 years. The cult of CAGW calls this the pause in warming, rather than observational evidence that their models are incorrect.
2) The majority of CO2 forcing warming occurs at the equator rather than in high latitude region. This is not what is observed.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
William said – “The ubiquitous toy model diagram that is presented by the cult of CAGW to provide a sciency explanation of the CO2 forcing, hides the fact there is a significant latitudinal variance in the amount of short wave radiation that strikes the earth (equator verses higher latitudes) as the earth is a sphere not a flat table. As the short wave solar energy is changed to long wave radiation the majority of the long wave radiation is also emitted in the tropics rather than at the poles.”
You have it only partially correct. The tropics and extra tropics compromise something like 64% of the earths surface but they absorb over 80% of the solar radiation, but the tropics emit less radiation than their surface area percentage.
A square meter at the equator absorbs as much or more SW radiation as a thousand square meters at the pole simply based on geometry. And the Tropics has almost 9 times the surface area of the poles. Your chart if properly weighted to absorption per square meter would be an inverted U.
The latent heat is transported poleward and when the atmosphere condenses and contracts the heat is then radiated out of the system.
CO2 doesn’t even play a measurable role in the energy flow through the system.
“You will discover predicting long range climatic conditions have about the same chance of success as selecting next week’s six winning lottery numbers.”
Hey! I’ve got an IDEA! How about we get together a bunch of past lottery grand prize winners, have them guess what the climate will be like in 50 years, average their guesses, and…BINGO!
Where’s my cheque?
“Then there is the cyclical variation of sunspot activity on the Sun, and lastly, the effects of solar weather.”
I would look at solar weather first, as nothing else changes at the appropriate scales and ranges to account for much at all. Take the solar minima that occur roughly every ten solar cycles. The only thing in sight that could possibly account for the sharp increase in negative Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillation conditions and El Nino episodes in 1807-1817 in the Dalton Minimum, was weak solar wind states. Evidenced by a lack of Aurora sightings, see page 11:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/92RG01571-Aurorae.pdf
and low CET temperatures (annual on the far right column): http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
The positive/negative AO/NAO episodes can be forecast too, which is rather upsetting for the convention that such variability is internal and chaotic. but usefully indicates that the dominant solar variable is being completely neglected.
Modern man can grasp no more than a cycle of 30 years. Long cycles already knew the priests in ancient Egypt.
For a valid trend in global temperatures it would have to be from and to roughly the same AMO phase:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1900/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1911/to:1976/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1945/to:2010/trend
“… initiate methods to stabilize the Earth’s population.”
Demographics is destiny – someone said. Now many say so.
I wonder what is meant by “stabilize” in the above quote. Some populations of countries are declining. As those numbers drop, elsewhere the numbers go up. Is the increase of people in Europe via boatloads of people from Africa a good or a bad thing if it helps stabilize the population of both regions? Maybe, on balance, there is a stable Earth population. Another thought is – at what number is a stable population near some “best” or acceptable level? Using what criteria? Who decides?
Many times it is best not to introduce an issue unless you understand it very well and are prepared to support a position.
To forecast change the first step is to understand the pattern previous to the change and produce the expected value without change. If you choose to use a facile three hundred years out of date method to project the future natural temperature and get a simplistic assessment of normal progression, of course the answers of change will be rubbish.
Climate scientists are regrettably totally untrained and not very bright sub first year engineering undergrad level amateurs at signal processing and should never have even been listened to at all.
Compared to the proper analysis of normal the period of so called global warming was nothing of the kind. It was just the coincidence of two of the natural long term cycles within the normal very long term noise figure.
Paid deniers are complicit in the climate change deaths of hundreds of thousands of deaths per year, 88% of them children.
World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
May worms crawl from the ears of the doubt merchants as they sip their expensive champagne.
jfreed27.
Dead wrong. Your UN bureaucrats are pushing the lie to justify the policy of taxes and Big Finance money transfer they (and you) want.
In the UK alone, energy poverty caused directly by your climate change policies killed 23,000 one winter; 13,000 the next. Worldwide, tens of millions die from cold, from dung-smoking fires, from illness and disease easily prevented by clean water, sanitation, and food preservation YOU deny them.
LOL.. who here is getting paid by what interest group? Sorry to see you brought a hateful attitude, we’re just here discussing the facts we have collectively observed and how they relate to predictions made which conveniently require centralization of government and redistribution of wealth.
Yes, I get benefits from blogging here but they’re not monetary, friend. No one here has to sell skepticism in science matters, it should come naturally to an open, inquisitive mind. There is no dogma here to counter the consensus guided global meme, only open-minded discussions of reality vs. opinion to test our current convictions.
When evidence is actually proven of anthropogenic climate disruption, you can be sure that Mr. Watts will be among the first to report it and there will be no problem of accepting empirical fact. Until that time comes we will do as followers of great scientists like Feynman and Sagan do. We will continue to observe and question the presented theories with as little bias or emotion as humanly possible.
Hating people shortens your lifespan and suppresses one’s natural optimism. Civility provides intrinsic satisfaction and a healthy relationship in the community. Welcome to the thinker’s club.
sorry, meant to tag that for jfreed27