Rather than get hung up on the horns of a dilemma...seek truth in the tension of the paradox.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
More actual evidence re: Global warming. sans hysteria.
. Bob, January 29, 2012 at 9:03 am :
Burt,
like yourself, I’m primarily am engineer, and started working in the aerospace industry in the late 50′s, officially retiring in the early 2000′s. As such, the work involved both the theory & hands on application such as field problems, and correlation of theory & reality.
About 4 years ago I got interested, in the AGW discussion. In the 40′s, I started recording hi/lo temperatures for a neighbor, who was interested in the weather, for 50 cents a week. Back then, that was big money, and it helped finance my back yard telescope.Seems I thought I could capture the “red shift” of receding galaxies, huge failure, but it was interesting, and picked up some optics along the was, and was a preparation for later work in the IR region for space based sensors.
A related area was, in adaptive & statistical process control, & signal processing, using Wiener & Kalman methods. It was work in this area, that caused me to wonder why the temperature “smoothed” graphs were cut off prior to the of the available data. In process control, delay in getting up to date, or “anticipation” can make the system unstable, and a great deal of effort is put into predicting where the process will be.
So I started looking at the available temperature sets UAH, RSS, GISS, etc., and started spectral analysis & Fourier convolution filtering, since celestial mechanics noted that there are secular variations present. In posting over at a site (RC), the response was interesting, especially personal comments. Having been in more heated engineering/science “discussions”, then I care to think about, I knew that personal comments were a sure way to an immediate career change, and it pointed to a discussion based more on emotion & personal views then science.
To make a long story short, here is a sample graph using Fourier convolution filtering, (a 20 & 50 yr lo pass), on a composite anomaly of stations which started recording prior to 1800 (CEL, Debilt, Uppsalla, etc.), to evaluate periodic components. Using this method dose get me to the endpoints, and gives insight as to periodic “energy” in the raw data. http://www.4shared.com/photo/I04JY2jI/Ave14_2010_FF_20yr.html http://www.4shared.com/photo/4FKXcwnw/Ave14_2010_FF_50yr.html
From the graphs, I think I’ll keep my Union suit handy.
Good article!
!
Here’s an estimate of the warming capability from no less than the late Stephen Schneider:
“It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.”
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
FD.L, January 29, 2012 at 11:05 am :
The real problem is still the observed data since 1998 in ocean heat, stratosphere temperature – they show a no to a small fraction of what the IPCC or main AGW models were predicting.
This is used to present an argument that that positive temperature feedback to ncreased CO2 not only May not exist, measured data indicates the feedback is likely negative.
Without the positive feedback, a lot of the scenarios on warming would require a revisit of the models.
Past decade or so measured data continues to deviate from the IPCC and agw proponent’s computer models. This is the real reasons why the consensus is fraying. Scientific theories no matter how elegant cannot deny measured observations – that’s how the null-hypothesis gets disproved.
Mark Wells, January 29, 2012 at 11:19 am :
Lets see I can take the opinion of some obscure engineer or a world renown engineer. I can take the opinion of some second year physics major or the word of the most important physicist (Freeman Dyson) of our modern era. Wow, hard choice don’t you think?
I am also an engineer by trade and like Rutan, had concerns for how the science was being conducted. I researched and evaluated and came to the same conclusion as Rutan: The data has been manipulated ( which was proven in the Climategate emails), the parameters of the IPCC climate models are horribly incomplete and the raw observed temperatures dont relate to the “homogenized” data from the temperature reporting bureaus. BTW if you want to reconsider your opinion, now is the time. Take one look at this article from the MET Office in the UK (THE most important AGW institute) and you will have to hold your head low and immediately apologize to Mr. Rutan. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
like yourself, I’m primarily am engineer, and started working in the aerospace industry in the late 50′s, officially retiring in the early 2000′s. As such, the work involved both the theory & hands on application such as field problems, and correlation of theory & reality.
About 4 years ago I got interested, in the AGW discussion. In the 40′s, I started recording hi/lo temperatures for a neighbor, who was interested in the weather, for 50 cents a week. Back then, that was big money, and it helped finance my back yard telescope.Seems I thought I could capture the “red shift” of receding galaxies, huge failure, but it was interesting, and picked up some optics along the was, and was a preparation for later work in the IR region for space based sensors.
A related area was, in adaptive & statistical process control, & signal processing, using Wiener & Kalman methods. It was work in this area, that caused me to wonder why the temperature “smoothed” graphs were cut off prior to the of the available data. In process control, delay in getting up to date, or “anticipation” can make the system unstable, and a great deal of effort is put into predicting where the process will be.
So I started looking at the available temperature sets UAH, RSS, GISS, etc., and started spectral analysis & Fourier convolution filtering, since celestial mechanics noted that there are secular variations present. In posting over at a site (RC), the response was interesting, especially personal comments. Having been in more heated engineering/science “discussions”, then I care to think about, I knew that personal comments were a sure way to an immediate career change, and it pointed to a discussion based more on emotion & personal views then science.
To make a long story short, here is a sample graph using Fourier convolution filtering, (a 20 & 50 yr lo pass), on a composite anomaly of stations which started recording prior to 1800 (CEL, Debilt, Uppsalla, etc.), to evaluate periodic components. Using this method dose get me to the endpoints, and gives insight as to periodic “energy” in the raw data.
http://www.4shared.com/photo/I04JY2jI/Ave14_2010_FF_20yr.html
http://www.4shared.com/photo/4FKXcwnw/Ave14_2010_FF_50yr.html
From the graphs, I think I’ll keep my Union suit handy.
Good article!
!
Here’s an estimate of the warming capability from no less than the late Stephen Schneider:
“It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.”
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
This is used to present an argument that that positive temperature feedback to ncreased CO2 not only May not exist, measured data indicates the feedback is likely negative.
Without the positive feedback, a lot of the scenarios on warming would require a revisit of the models.
Past decade or so measured data continues to deviate from the IPCC and agw proponent’s computer models. This is the real reasons why the consensus is fraying. Scientific theories no matter how elegant cannot deny measured observations – that’s how the null-hypothesis gets disproved.
I am also an engineer by trade and like Rutan, had concerns for how the science was being conducted. I researched and evaluated and came to the same conclusion as Rutan: The data has been manipulated ( which was proven in the Climategate emails), the parameters of the IPCC climate models are horribly incomplete and the raw observed temperatures dont relate to the “homogenized” data from the temperature reporting bureaus. BTW if you want to reconsider your opinion, now is the time. Take one look at this article from the MET Office in the UK (THE most important AGW institute) and you will have to hold your head low and immediately apologize to Mr. Rutan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html