Hi all. Today there appeared an article on a Norwegian web service devoted to science and research, http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/november/1068027563.06 that outlines some heating in the debate over global warming. Apparently, two researchers have double-checked the data behind a UN report that was very influencial when writing the Kyoto document from 1998. In the new article, the authors find problems with the processing and interpretation some data that almost dictated the writings and phrasings in the Kyoto protocol of 1998. The new article presents an interpretation that, if correct, tends to undermine the foundation of the 1998 Kyoto document. Unfortunately, the web page is written in Norwegian but there are two figures that show the original temperature data as well as a comparision of the first and second interpretation of the temperature data. At the very bottom of the page there are links to other (English) articles and documents where the discussion is continued. My point of mentioning this here, is that I have had this feeling that once you get a sufficiently huge authority or organization to back you, you are infallible: "The UN does not make mistakes" implicitly implying "I work for the UN so I don't make mistakes". Which is a very dangerous attitude. Rune
OT: Authority
Started by ●November 7, 2003
Reply by ●November 7, 20032003-11-07
Rune Allnor wrote:> Hi all. > > Today there appeared an article on a Norwegian web service devoted > to science and research, > > http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/november/1068027563.06 > > that outlines some heating in the debate over global warming. > Apparently, two researchers have double-checked the data behind a > UN report that was very influencial when writing the Kyoto document > from 1998. In the new article, the authors find problems with the > processing and interpretation some data that almost dictated the > writings and phrasings in the Kyoto protocol of 1998. The new article > presents an interpretation that, if correct, tends to undermine the > foundation of the 1998 Kyoto document. > > Unfortunately, the web page is written in Norwegian but there are two > figures that show the original temperature data as well as a comparision > of the first and second interpretation of the temperature data. At the > very bottom of the page there are links to other (English) articles and > documents where the discussion is continued. > > My point of mentioning this here, is that I have had this feeling that > once you get a sufficiently huge authority or organization to back you, > you are infallible: "The UN does not make mistakes" implicitly implying > "I work for the UN so I don't make mistakes". > > Which is a very dangerous attitude. > > RuneI remember when the idea that continental drift might not be a lunatic's dream after all was seeping slowly into geologist's consciousnesses. Acceptance was not immediate, but it came rapidly enough to be exciting. Many years of geologic dogma were completely overthrown in what seemed like a short time even to an adolescent bookworm/tinkerer. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●November 7, 20032003-11-07
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:bogcjs$2ll$1@bob.news.rcn.net...>> > I remember when the idea that continental drift might not be a lunatic's > dream after all was seeping slowly into geologist's consciousnesses. > Acceptance was not immediate, but it came rapidly enough to be exciting. > Many years of geologic dogma were completely overthrown in what seemed > like a short time even to an adolescent bookworm/tinkerer.Hello Jerry, I remember that a lot of the issue with Wegoner's theory was that he was a meteorologist and therefore what could he possibly know about geology. Sometimes you just have to be a member of the club to be taken seriously. Fortunately Wegoner stuck to his guns and as technology developed, substantial findings were made that backed his theory. Most of this was within 2 to 3 decades time - which is certainly short as you mentioned. Of course now the theory is well accepted. In California laser interferometers are used to monitor the crust's slow creep along the fault lines. I remember when the petroleum companies looked at putting South America and Africa together (aligning the continental shelves) and using the correspondence to associate oil fields between the two continents. Since even Wegoner had matched up fossils and rock strata between the two, so why not fossil fuels? Clay> > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > ����������������������������������������������������������������������� >
Reply by ●November 7, 20032003-11-07
"Clay S. Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<TRPqb.47307$SV2.21498@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:bogcjs$2ll$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > >> > > I remember when the idea that continental drift might not be a lunatic's > > dream after all was seeping slowly into geologist's consciousnesses. > > Acceptance was not immediate, but it came rapidly enough to be exciting. > > Many years of geologic dogma were completely overthrown in what seemed > > like a short time even to an adolescent bookworm/tinkerer.I was more concerned about the impact that first "hockey-stick curve" had from a political point of view. That was elaborated in the text (in Norwegian) and the author of the web page makes a point that if the last analysis is correct, it may have severe political consequences. I get instantly suspicious when people say "it's true because UN said so", when they (in my opinion) should say "current analyses of available data suggest that..." If you download the critical article from http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf the main critique is data handling, interpolation, truncation and data quality control in general. The conclusion is pretty devastating for the original analysis (which is refered to as MBH98): "Without endorsing the MBH98 methodology or choice of source data, we were able to apply the MBH98 methodology to a database with improved quality control and found that their own method, carefully applied to their own intended source data, yielded a Northern Hemisphere temperature index which in the late 20th century is unexceptional compared to previous centuries, displaying neither unusually high mean values nor variability." I don't know who is right or who is wrong, but I certainly prefer whatever political decisions following this, to be based on valid arguments.> I remember that a lot of the issue with Wegoner's theory was that he was a > meteorologist and therefore what could he possibly know about geology. > Sometimes you just have to be a member of the club to be taken seriously. > Fortunately Wegoner stuck to his guns and as technology developed, > substantial findings were made that backed his theory. Most of this was > within 2 to 3 decades time - which is certainly short as you mentioned. Of > course now the theory is well accepted. In California laser interferometers > are used to monitor the crust's slow creep along the fault lines. I remember > when the petroleum companies looked at putting South America and Africa > together (aligning the continental shelves) and using the correspondence to > associate oil fields between the two continents. Since even Wegoner had > matched up fossils and rock strata between the two, so why not fossil fuels?Could you remind me about how that theory was developed? I think I have seen an account somewhere where Wegoner suggested continental drift as a phenomenon some time around 1919-20. Apparently, he based his suggestion on similarities in geology as well as shapes of landforms across the Atlantic ocean. At first he was labeled a Crackpot, since he could not explain the mechanisms of continental drift, but when a mechanism at last was found (around 1950?) all the pieces fell in place and everybody accepted his theory. Rune
Reply by ●November 7, 20032003-11-07
"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:f56893ae.0311071441.2bb0f34c@posting.google.com... Hello Rune, It is indeed a fascinating story. A pretty good account is given in the 1983 Time-Life book "Continents in Collision." That was the one that got me hooked on it. I had heard of it before, but at that time there weren't many popular accounts. When I was a kid, many texts still talked about geosynclines and land bridges. And this was in the '60s and '70s. According to Alfred Wegener (sorry I had it mispelled earlier), he was in the Marburg library browsing in 1911 and picked up a paper describing a land bridge. He read the paper which cited many connections between South America and Africa. He became so intrigued that he did a lot more research, and soon decided the commonality between distant lands was that they were once one and drifted apart rather than being joined by a simple land bridge. He first publicly anounced his theory in Jan 6, 1912. Later he would write a book called "The Origin of Continents and Oceans." In its 3rd edition (1922), Wegener had combined all of the continents to create Pangaea. Just about all scientists at the time rejected his ideas, and Wegener died on an expedition in Greenland in 1930. So he didn't get to see his theory proved right. Key discoveries that led to the acceptance of the theory: Echo sounding of the ocean floor revealed much thinner layers of sediment than expected. Discovery of deep ocean trenches. Continents were made of granite (less dense) and the ocean floor is made of basalt (more dense). So the continents literally float about. Midatlantic rift is discovered whose position evenly splits the distance between the continents. Discovery of guyots. Guyots are volcanic mountians that have had their tops weathered flat. The furthur a guyot is from the midocean ridge, the deeper its top is below the ocean's surface. The accepted theory is that as the ocean floor moves away from the spreading center, the rock cools and contracts. There is a near linear relation between the ocean floor depth and the distance from the mid ocean ridge. Lack of ocean floor rocks over 600 million years old whereas the continents have rocks billions (10^9) of years old. Old seafloor gets sucked into the subduction zones and is replaced with new seafloor from the midocean ridges. This functions like a conveyer belt that drags the continents along. Symmetrical paleomagnetic patterns on both sides of the mid ocean ridge. When hot rock cools below the curie temperature, it locks in the magnetic field. The patterns are caused by the Earth's field reversals being recorded in the cooling rock spreading from the midocean ridges. 3-D plots of earthquakes correspond with midocean ridges and known fault lines and island chains. In fact worldwide plots clearly show the outlines of the tecktonic plates. Many island chains are parts of circular arcs. When rigid motion is attempted on a sphere, something must give along the edges and this spawns volcanos. And this motion will be along circular arcs. For example look at the Tonga, Marianas, and Aleutian Islands. A quick look at a globe and thinking about the ring of fire makes it easy to see the Pacific plate. Starting with the main island in Hawaii, each succesive island in the chain is older than the one before. This fits the model that the crust is moving over a hot spot which pushes up new volcanos every so often. This chain extends 1500 miles to the Midway islands. There are many other examples, but I think these outline the major points. The early echo soundings were done during the 1940s and the good siesmic plots and paleomagnetic surveys were done in the 1960s and 1970s. Clay> > Could you remind me about how that theory was developed? I think I have > seen an account somewhere where Wegoner suggested continental drift as > a phenomenon some time around 1919-20. Apparently, he based his suggestion > on similarities in geology as well as shapes of landforms across the > Atlantic ocean. At first he was labeled a Crackpot, since he could not > explain the mechanisms of continental drift, but when a mechanism at last > was found (around 1950?) all the pieces fell in place and everybody > accepted his theory. > > Rune
Reply by ●November 7, 20032003-11-07
"Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message news:f56893ae.0311070500.7b559538@posting.google.com...> Hi all. > > Today there appeared an article on a Norwegian web service devoted > to science and research, > > http://www.forskning.no/Artikler/2003/november/1068027563.06 > > that outlines some heating in the debate over global warming. > Apparently, two researchers have double-checked the data behind a > UN report that was very influencial when writing the Kyoto document > from 1998. In the new article, the authors find problems with the > processing and interpretation some data that almost dictated the > writings and phrasings in the Kyoto protocol of 1998. The new article > presents an interpretation that, if correct, tends to undermine the > foundation of the 1998 Kyoto document.(snip)> My point of mentioning this here, is that I have had this feeling that > once you get a sufficiently huge authority or organization to back you, > you are infallible: "The UN does not make mistakes" implicitly implying > "I work for the UN so I don't make mistakes".On the other hand, it seems that the cancer and 60Hz magnetic field association was based on faked data. It took a lot of experiments and statistical analysis before that was discovered. I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather. It takes many measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant. The sources and sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either. -- glen
Reply by ●November 8, 20032003-11-08
"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53>...> I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because > there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather. It takes many > measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant. The sources and > sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either.Exactly. I think the debate (the political, not the scientific although the difference is not always clear) has been too simplistic. What are the effects of variable activity on the sun, which ultimately fuels the climate system? My impression is that one can expect at least two eruptions of the Mt St Helens type per decade. What are the effects of such vulcanic activity on the atmosphere? How reliable are historic data? Sure, I certainly share the concern for climate variation, thirty years ago there came as much snow in one week as came the whole last winter. Still, I believe the trick to finding out what's going on is to keep a cool head and clear mind, and analyze the data available in an as scientific (as opposed to emotional) way as possible. Rune
Reply by ●November 8, 20032003-11-08
"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53...> > I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because > there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather. It takes many > measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant. The sourcesand> sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either.Hello Glen, Rune et. al., You have basiicaly hit the nail on the head. They are looking for a very small signal in something that has a lot of noise. And to make matters worse, a good model for the Earth's temperature includes very long term variations. Some of these variations are well understood, have astronomical orgins, and correspond with known ice ages. But as Rune has pointed out, other things such as volcanism can create multiyear impacts on temperture. I recall reading about a strong link between an eruption in Krakatoa during either the 5th or 6th century and the plague. The Chinese actually recorded in their annals hearing an incredible explosion whose date corresponds well with the dates of ash fields and lava flows in the Krakatoa region. The connection with the plague is that it requires cold weather to be able to spread - it is not a tropical disease. The records in Europe at the time indicate extremely cold weather and lots of dirt in the atmosphere that almost totally blocked out the sun. The dark ages were litterally dark. But the issue of drifts in the Earth's temperature across a period of several centuries, I believe, is still largely difficult to measure and harder yet, be able to say what's its cause. Certainly cloroflourocarbons and cow farts (methane which is reputed to be a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) potentially have environmental impacts. Measurements of CO2 from Hawaii certainly show the increase of the gas in the atmosphere. The graphs very importantly show the yearly variation which gives an estimate for how well the flora can consume the CO2. Now mankind certainly gets to make a decision about greenhouse gases in that we can say they have no measurable effect and maintain the status quo, or we can say there is potential for a problem and therefore let's implement a solution. But certianly if one can say there is a problem, it is easier to get others to join in a solution. Now this is where you can add in the politics in that the industrialists what to keep things just the same and the anti-industrialists want to stop industry. Scientists, in general, tend to be anti-industry so I wouldn't be suprised to that as a bias in analyzing the data. I've seen many cases where the raw data doesn't oviously make or break the case for a thesis, so the analyist comes up with a method to make the adjusted data support his hypothesis. I think the UN analysis reflects this bias. This situation makes me think of Rutherford's expression that if your experiment needs statistics, you need a better experiment. The latest trend in monitoring global warming involves monitoring the worldwide lightning strike frequency via Schumann resonance. But this monitoring has been only for the last 10 years, so the data set is way to small. Clay> > -- glen > >
Reply by ●November 8, 20032003-11-08
Clay S. Turner wrote: ...> Hello Rune, > It is indeed a fascinating story. A pretty good account is given in the 1983 > Time-Life book "Continents in Collision." That was the one that got me > hooked on it. I had heard of it before, but at that time there weren't many > popular accounts. When I was a kid, many texts still talked about > geosynclines and land bridges. And this was in the '60s and '70s.... Many texts are out of date, even when published. A generation of physics texts showed a picture, copied from one to the next, of water issuing from holes in the side of a container at three distances below the water surface. The purpose was to illustrate the variation of pressure with depth, but the stream trajectories weren't physically realizable. People still design PID control systems despite a better way's having been published in 1977 by Richard Phelan.> Key discoveries that led to the acceptance of the theory: > > Echo sounding ... deep ocean trenches.[Much else snipped]> Symmetrical paleomagnetic patterns on both sides of the mid ocean ridge. > When hot rock cools below the curie temperature, it locks in the magnetic > field. The patterns are caused by the Earth's field reversals being recorded > in the cooling rock spreading from the midocean ridges.In the late 40s and up to the mid 50s, these findings, mostly from Columbia University's Lamont-Dougherty Geological Observatory, were regularly written up by the researchers themselves in Scientific American, where I read of them. No mention of drift was in the reports, just the findings. Drift was obvious even to me, a naive reader, as at least the likely explanation of all the findings. Still, they spent years erecting a robust framework to support the idea before it was ever explicitly, if tentatively, mentioned. You can imagine the intellectual climate! ... Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●November 8, 20032003-11-08
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:30:03 -0500, "Clay S. Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> wrote:> >"Glen Herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message >news:zAZqb.102830$275.289856@attbi_s53... >> >> I haven't tried to follow the global warning numbers very much, because >> there is a lot of statistical variation in the weather. It takes many >> measurements to get the S/N high enough to be significant. The sources >and >> sinks for CO2 aren't very well known, either. > >Hello Glen, Rune et. al., > >You have basiicaly hit the nail on the head. They are looking for a very >small signal in something that has a lot of noise. >And to make matters worse, a good model for the Earth's temperature includes >very long term variations. Some of these variations are well understood, >have astronomical orgins, and correspond with known ice ages. But as Rune >has pointed out, other things such as volcanism can create multiyear impacts >on temperture. I recall reading about a strong link between an eruption in >Krakatoa during either the 5th or 6th century and the plague. The Chinese >actually recorded in their annals hearing an incredible explosion whose date >corresponds well with the dates of ash fields and lava flows in the Krakatoa >region. The connection with the plague is that it requires cold weather to >be able to spread - it is not a tropical disease. The records in Europe at >the time indicate extremely cold weather and lots of dirt in the atmosphere >that almost totally blocked out the sun. The dark ages were litterally dark. >But the issue of drifts in the Earth's temperature across a period of >several centuries, I believe, is still largely difficult to measure and >harder yet, be able to say what's its cause. Certainly cloroflourocarbons >and cow farts (methane which is reputed to be a worse greenhouse gas than >carbon dioxide) potentially have environmental impacts. Measurements of CO2 >from Hawaii certainly show the increase of the gas in the atmosphere. The >graphs very importantly show the yearly variation which gives an estimate >for how well the flora can consume the CO2. > >Now mankind certainly gets to make a decision about greenhouse gases in that >we can say they have no measurable effect and maintain the status quo, or we >can say there is potential for a problem and therefore let's implement a >solution. But certianly if one can say there is a problem, it is easier to >get others to join in a solution. Now this is where you can add in the >politics in that the industrialists what to keep things just the same and >the anti-industrialists want to stop industry. Scientists, in general, tend >to be anti-industry so I wouldn't be suprised to that as a bias in analyzing >the data. I've seen many cases where the raw data doesn't oviously make or >break the case for a thesis, so the analyist comes up with a method to make >the adjusted data support his hypothesis. I think the UN analysis reflects >this bias. This situation makes me think of Rutherford's expression that if >your experiment needs statistics, you need a better experiment. The latest >trend in monitoring global warming involves monitoring the worldwide >lightning strike frequency via Schumann resonance. But this monitoring has >been only for the last 10 years, so the data set is way to small. > >ClayHi Clay and all the other guys, Neat. What an interesting thread!!! Ya know, when some hate-whitey liberal tells me that automobiles are causing global warming and that we're all gonna die, I ask them: "If that's true, what caused the global warming 20,000 years ago that ended the last 'ice age' when there were no automobiles? In case you didn't know, you stinkin' socialist puke, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tina Turner were *not* driving their Hummers around town 20,000 years ago!!!" Ha ha. [-Rick-]
