Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Little Truths -> Conclusion

  1. May 20, 2007 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Little Truths ---> Conclusion

    I've never thought to ask the PhD's around the office until now, and when I do, I'll report back, but I'm curious what other people think (or know) about this. I'm almost scared to ask them about it because it seems kind of a silly question, especially since I have no interest in becoming a climate scientist.

    We study little facts. They don't all have to do with the atmosphere, but some of it does. We compile the data and share it (of course, certain people have dibs on data and it can't be shared with those that don't for some reason).

    So who gets all this data from all these scientists all over the world and compiles it? What group makes the analysis of the data and draws the conclusion about the 'overall status of the planet'?
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2007 #2
    Well I'm not sure what the intention is of your question, but you're probably looking for the NASA lab with doctor Hansen errrm Bunsen Honeydew, where the past and future are being made .....today
  4. May 21, 2007 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I guess my point is that the climatologists I know around here (not the news forecast weathermen) couldn't really tell you anything about the validity of AGW, even though they're the ones that are digging up the little facts on it.

    They seem to have more integrity about the subject because they're actually giddy about being able to figure out what's going on where human perception fails, so they like collecting data and analyzing what it means locally.

    On the other hand, it seems like one helluva project to sift through it all and make meaning out of it on a global level. There has got to be so many ambiguities from so much data from so many different times and places, and from so many different methods of collecting (and recording) data.
  5. May 21, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Climatologists only have one short shot at this. When all of those bits and pieces were put together they didn't paint a rosy picture for the future.

    The problem with those who want hard scientific empirical evidence in regards to global warming is that it is impossible to reproduce in a lab what is happening on a global scale.

    We have some historical evidence to look back on to make comparisons but none of the climate changes in the past had an anthropological element involved in the equation.
  6. May 22, 2007 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, my point is that not all Climatologists are putting the pieces together, some just collect data or forecast local weather or just study particular systems. I'm curious what specific group (the IPCC is one, I think... I'm not sure if they're political or scientific) is making conclusions about either side of AWG.

    More importantly, I'm curious about the credibility of people taking on such a huge project. There's too much political interest involved in it for me trust even scientists at this this point. It's practically A pseudo-debate.

    I had totally fogotten about AGW honestly; I was going about my business but once I came back to Physicsforums I was reminded of it and now I'm getting sucked back into thinking about it.
  7. May 22, 2007 #6
    I understand the dilemma. I'm not too familiar with the current intergretation of all the specialities pertaining atmospheric processes but I do know about integration of paleoclimatology. It's a disaster. One of the major problems is cleaning up the mess after the falsification of hypotheses, especially when they oppose the scholar view on global warming. They keep lingering on and on. The practice is that comparing results is evaded because nothing seems to match

    On the top of my head:

    100,000 years Milankovitch cycle causes ice ages and interglacials:
    The Milankovitch cycles are 19, 22, 41, 90 and 410 thousand years. The 90,000 years cycle is a very weak superposition of the 410,000 years eccentricity cycle, which is the weakest of the insolation forcing differentiation. The dominant 100,000 years is NOT a Milakovitch cycle and the Milakovitch insolation curve does not correlate with the 100,000 cycle in the proxies. Milankovitch cycles do NOT drive the major glacial - Interglacial cycles, although the 19,22 and 41 Ky cycle are clearly visible in the proxies. Hypothesis falsified after testing inter speciality data

    Oceanic isotopes and ice sheet volume hypothesis:
    Numbers don't match, disdains oceanic inertia. Hypothesis falsified after testing actual glacial expansion with the numbers.

    Isotopes of Greenland ice cores represent paleo temperatures
    Comparison with the available paleobiologic, geologic and other proxies reveal that the isotopes do not correlatie with temperature but with aridness, which is logical. Hypothesis falsified after testing with the multiple empirical evidence.

    I promised a friend to start a thread on the latter to illustrate that. Perhaps there is some interest for that.
  8. May 22, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Mess is exactly the word I'd used to describe it. I wouldn't want to do it. I'm slightly concerned about anyone that would want to put all that data together and make conclusions, whether it be paleoclimatology or just current global climatology. Seems like an aweful big weight to carry.
  9. May 22, 2007 #8
    Ok stay tuned. I'll tell the story of the last glacial transition and the problems with intergrating all the information in another thread tomorrow.
  10. May 23, 2007 #9


    User Avatar

    Yay! And there's a Happy Birthday thread for you Andre, in GD.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook