Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Global Warming - Page 18







Post#426 at 05-01-2007 02:08 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
05-01-2007, 02:08 AM #426
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Andy '85 View Post
Am I one of the few who feels that global warming, whatever form you take it in, should not be the end to justify the means?
No you're not. But when you try to point that out to a True Believer, you get the same sort of screams of "Heretic! Heretic!" that you would trying to explain to a Bible thumper that atheists can be ethical people, too.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#427 at 05-01-2007 03:09 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
05-01-2007, 03:09 AM #427
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Andy '85 View Post
Am I one of the few who feels that global warming, whatever form you take it in, should not be the end to justify the means?

Is it the only way to convince people to practice environmentally sound policies in terms of gas emissions?
Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
No you're not. But when you try to point that out to a True Believer, you get the same sort of screams of "Heretic! Heretic!" that you would trying to explain to a Bible thumper that atheists can be ethical people, too.
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you two are talking about. Do you perceive some pressure to conform WRT to global warming that I'm missing entirely? I'm fairly heterodox on the matter, and I don't feel pressure in either direction. All that I'm being exhorted to do is:

1) Replace incandenscent bulbs with CF -- no problem, saves money and I like the spectrum better anyway.
2) Adjust the thermostat -- no problem, I usually have it turned off entirely and just wear more layers if I feel like it.
3) Drive a more fuel-efficient car -- no problem, I usually walk to work, or take the bus.
4) Buy carbon offsets -- no problem, I don't mind spending money to plant trees.

So what's the whole Holy War that I'm missing? Maybe I just have better things to do with my time.
Yes we did!







Post#428 at 05-01-2007 03:26 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-01-2007, 03:26 AM #428
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

The Department of Energy's Parallel Climate Model

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Interesting. So, the coefficients were -- from the scope of this paper -- predetermined. How, exactly? I trust you must have an answer to that, since you are so quick to point the liar-finger at me...

It's not in the Meehl paper...
Early on, Meehl quotes the simulation he is using, the US Department of Energy's PCM. Lots of fascinating stuff on their page on how the model works. Lots of people worked to put the model together, and to compile the data base of the various volcanic, greenhouse, solar, and other climate altering effects commonly used to drive the model.

Parallel Climate Model Effort (Version 1)

This is a joint effort to develop a DOE-sponsored parallel climate model between Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the Naval Postgraduate School (NPG), the US Army Corps of Engineers' Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab (CRREL) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). We have coupled the NCAR Community Climate Model version 3, the LANL Parallel Ocean Program, and a sea ice model from the Naval Postgraduate School together in a massively parallel computer environment. This is Version 1 of the PCM (PCM1).
The model takes an input, performs rather complex calculations, and produces an output that matches reality pretty darn good. The model is usually run with all aspects of the data base of changing climate forcing information enabled. Meehl et al just ran it many times with parts of the data entered in each run. They wanted to see if the model was linear, if the various types of climate altering phenomena operated relatively independently, or whether the model reflected complex interactions between the various forcing elements.

They discovered the model was linear. You could divide the data into five chunks, run the model five times, add the five resulting curves together, and the result was a tight match for running the model once with all five sets of data. To the extent that the model is a good match for measured reality, we can to some degree assume that the world is similarly linear with respect to these climate effects.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
It is the Big Lie. That is, the continuous attempt to co-opt the hard-won reputation of science to the support of your unscientific "consensus-driven" methodology.

They may has well have; they sure didn't depend on fundamental equations.
To some degree, at some level, there is a faith element involved even among those of us who hold scientific values more central than political values or religious values. I have an element of faith that if one gets caught fudging a paper in a serious journal, one is going to be expelled from the community. I have an element of faith that if one publishes a controversial work, that work will be reviewed. If one combines these two elements of faith, this makes it a high risk proposition to publish deliberately biased reports on controversial subjects.

I also look at the diverse agencies and projects that fund and contribute to the DOE PCM and have a hard time seeing why they want to lie to themselves. If they are throwing enough money at the problem to start buying massively parallel computer arrays, if the Navy wants to know where they might or might not be able to sail their ships in a decade or two, if the Army wants to know how changing climates might force migration and political instability, I have problems projecting this as an insincere effort.

The Pentagon went to the UN Security Council a bit ago to give a big heads up. I have no doubt that the DOE PCM data was part of this heads up.

I don't have a clue why you are asserting they aren't using "fundamental equations" but are instead "curve fitting." The DOE PCM is a planetary simulation. It divides an imaginary planet into a bunch of little oceanic and atmospheric pieces, shines imaginary sunlight on it, and calculates how each chunk of planet might effect its neighbors. The purpose of the paper is to test linearity. You don't fit curves while trying to find out if they add linearly. Your claim of curve fitting shows a profound lack of understanding of what the paper was attempting to determine.

I don't know if you don't understand what the model does, if you just use Big Lie out of habit, or if your values are not allowing you to admit that a whole bunch of people put a whole lot of work into a project that works as designed very well, thank you.

All your arguments against it are anti-faith based. You assert the model is bad, the paper is bad, the curves are bad without providing a scientific reason to doubt the model. All your attempts to discredit the model, paper and curves have simply been unsourced and wrong.







Post#429 at 05-01-2007 04:50 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-01-2007, 04:50 AM #429
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
lol ... there is no holy war that I can see either. I think they were just talking about people on this thread(?)

I was also wondering if people who have a science background, like a college degree or higher, actually have a better understanding of the complexity of this issue, and how difficult it is to "prove" anything about it one way or another, no matter how much data you spew out. To me, it seems like the more we learn in science, the less we know. Especially as the number of variables increases. I can't remember when I first heard this expression, but the term SWAG ... "Scientific Wild Ass Guess" ... has an awful lot of truth to it. Which is why I find arguing about this issue to be rather bizarre.
I'm more engineer than scientist. Not quite the same thing, but you learn that integrity in respecting the data and constantly testing design and implementation is vital. I have worked several projects that might be compatible in complexity and team effort to the DOE PCM weather simulation. I know something of what sort of integrity and discipline it takes to make a big project work, to take that much data and have it mesh smoothly with reality.

So maybe I'm not objective when such effort is dismissed without valid criticism. I've had government sponsor teams come in to verify my work, to make sure my colleagues and I have spent their millions well, and to confirm that the next several millions for the next phase are to be paid. I know what sort of criticisms is to be respected, what sort of proofs are to be offered.

I can see where the 'holy war' comment might be coming from. There is a values clash here. We have a scientific question that has been answered to within reasonable tolerance. People with political values are dismissing the science while alleging the scientists are motivated by religious rather than scientific values. This is high insult to at least some of us with scientific values.

Wild ass guesses? It's part of engineering and science. You have to eventually prove something to your sponsor, but long before you do the final design review you start with a whiteboard and felt marker throwing ideas up.

In climate change, you can just look at all the glaciers melting and make some wild ass guesses about what is going on. Thing is, depending on an individual's values, an ass's wild ass guess will be wild indeed. If one's political values suggest that the government shouldn't do anything, the wild ass guess will be that nothing is going on that will require the government to do anything.

And that's where you have to start doing real science. One also has to be able to tell the scientist from the wild ass.

Fortunately, this is not difficult.







Post#430 at 05-01-2007 06:21 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
05-01-2007, 06:21 AM #430
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Early on, Meehl quotes the simulation he is using, the US Department of Energy's PCM. Lots of fascinating stuff on their page on how the model works. Lots of people worked to put the model together, and to compile the data base of the various volcanic, greenhouse, solar, and other climate altering effects commonly used to drive the model.
Yes yes. The model itself is a work of art. Nodal-based iterative calculations, performed on such a massive scale are frankly quite amazing things. But as you said, the model is driven by a set of components; and the extent to which each of those components influences the model is what we're really getting at when we talk about the question: anthropogenic?
And barring an actual clear understanding of the ways in which the various dynamics interact, we are left with mere drivers and their coefficients. Said coefficients derived not from fundamental physical law, but from dataset correlation. This is true no matter the model.
This is, for example, much the way that the dimensionless factors governing natural convective heat transfer over a finned heat sink with a total of n fins of x*y*t size, spaced s from center-to-center. The difference, of course, is that the coefficients in that case are the result of tens of thousands of controlled experiments. That is, empirical data. Out of this empirical data, the power of computing allows us to squash out a curve whose use will allow us to select coefficients for our heat transfer equations that accord with reality. Again, this is just the way modeling works.
What we have in the GW models, on the other hand, is curve-fitting to a single dataset; that is, average temperature versus batch-of-factors over the hundred years of time -- which, considering we want to be able to ignore seasonal variation, restricts us to a mere hundred (maybe) 'steps'. That is, we have a single experiment. It is as if we ran a test on an 8-fin, 10*5*0.5, 3s heat sink, and then claimed to be able to tease out results showing the various impacts of the physical parameters on heat sink efficiency. One such data set cannot make the claims you want it to make. The coefficients they have used in their modeling have not come from scientifically-rigorous methods; I am also disinclined to think that they merely pulled them out of their ass. Thus the justification for my contention that the curvefitting they are using is producing numbers meaningless to our understanding of just what is going on.

The model takes an input, performs rather complex calculations, and produces an output that matches reality pretty darn good.
It should, the coefficients were calibrated off the one dataset they are trying to match. That's the very first test to see if your model is working, from a programming standpoint.
But the Argument from Complexity? Seriously, Bob?

The model is usually run with all aspects of the data base of changing climate forcing information enabled. Meehl et al just ran it many times with parts of the data entered in each run. They wanted to see if the model was linear, if the various types of climate altering phenomena operated relatively independently, or whether the model reflected complex interactions between the various forcing elements.

They discovered the model was linear. You could divide the data into five chunks, run the model five times, add the five resulting curves together, and the result was a tight match for running the model once with all five sets of data. To the extent that the model is a good match for measured reality, we can to some degree assume that the world is similarly linear with respect to these climate effects.
Exactly what I said, up until the point where you treat a study of a model -- and a well-done study, at that -- for a study of reality. It has yet to have been demonstrated that the model they are using, for all its 'complex calculations' and fancy pictures, accords with reality and not just with the single calibration dataset. That is, the model program works and is linear. But is the reality that the model purports to mimick?

I have an element of faith that if one gets caught fudging a paper in a serious journal, one is going to be expelled from the community. I have an element of faith that if one publishes a controversial work, that work will be reviewed.
Ever read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? I bet you have. There's a reason why Virgil keeps bringing up phlogiston.

I also look at the diverse agencies and projects that fund and contribute to the DOE PCM and have a hard time seeing why they want to lie to themselves. If they are throwing enough money at the problem to start buying massively parallel computer arrays, if the Navy wants to know where they might or might not be able to sail their ships in a decade or two, if the Army wants to know how changing climates might force migration and political instability, I have problems projecting this as an insincere effort.
Are you serious? You have a hard time seeing why Government would waste time and money on something?

For god's sake, that's practically what they do...

All your arguments against it are anti-faith based. You assert the model is bad, the paper is bad, the curves are bad without providing a scientific reason to doubt the model. All your attempts to discredit the model, paper and curves have simply been unsourced and wrong.
The scientific basis to doubt The Model is the same scientific basis to doubt any other Holy Writ. That is: it claims to explain more than the data should allow it to explain. The very next reason to doubt is the fact that, unlike for example Einstein with his theories which purported to do something quite similar, the Writ is flogged with a righteous furor, and skeptics are treated not with reasoned arguments and 'let's design an experiment to check this out', but with opprobrium, and hand- and Writ-waving. I don't have a much more scientific basis than that for my skepticism regarding those who preach to impending Rapture, either. But I don't let that get me down...
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#431 at 05-01-2007 06:31 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
05-01-2007, 06:31 AM #431
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you two are talking about. Do you perceive some pressure to conform WRT to global warming that I'm missing entirely?
The problem -- and I've said it before -- is that this whole mass of good ideas (energy efficiency, pollution reduction, and so forth) is being so tightly tied the the scientifically-shaky proposition that humans are a primary cause of a rise in the planet's temperature.

It just doesn't seem a good idea to some of us to risk discrediting things that really are important just to be able to more strongly flog the Cause-of-the-Day.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#432 at 05-01-2007 07:25 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-01-2007, 07:25 AM #432
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I was also wondering if people who have a science background, like a college degree or higher, actually have a better understanding of the complexity of this issue, and how difficult it is to "prove" anything about it one way or another, no matter how much data you spew out.
Of course we do. And it not all that complex, certainly far less complex than metabolism, much less how multicellular organisms like human beings function. Do you as a doctor need to know everything that goes on inside the human body with exact accuracy in order to practice medicine successfully?

Think of all the enzyme-catalyzed metabolic reactions, genetic processes, regulatory processes and such going on all at the same time inside of a human body. Thousands and thousands of process, all governed by highly nonlinear rate equations (most of which aren't even known). Yet people work in this area successfully. Doctors have successful treatments for some illnesses.

Climate is the result of a few dozen processes, most of which are very well understood. It's far simpler and much, much better understood than the subject with which you work.







Post#433 at 05-01-2007 07:27 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-01-2007, 07:27 AM #433
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
The problem -- and I've said it before -- is that this whole mass of good ideas (energy efficiency, pollution reduction, and so forth) is being so tightly tied the the scientifically-shaky proposition that humans are a primary cause of a rise in the planet's temperature.

It just doesn't seem a good idea to some of us to risk discrediting things that really are important...
Why are they important?
Last edited by Mikebert; 05-01-2007 at 07:30 AM.







Post#434 at 05-01-2007 09:02 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-01-2007, 09:02 AM #434
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Ever read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
Kuhn is over-rated, and is often abused by selective skeptics like yourself and by PoMo idiots. My reading of the history of science tells me that most of Kuhn's "revolutions" really aren't, they just seem to be to non-specialists who are not knowledgeable of persistent alternative viewpoints often held by a large minority of scientists. Evolution started becoming popular is some circles a few decades before The Origin of Species was published. Geologist Arthur Holmes proposed what is essentially the basics of plate tectonics 30 years before plate tectonics was finally accepted. There were climatologists worried about the effects of our CO2 emissions as far back as the 50s. I am particularly knowledgeable about the history of biology since 1859, and all I see is gradual changes, not "revolutions." I consider Kuhn's distinction between "normal science" and "Paradigm-shifting science" to be nonsense.
Last edited by Odin; 05-01-2007 at 09:08 AM.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#435 at 05-01-2007 10:43 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-01-2007, 10:43 AM #435
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Yes yes. The model itself is a work of art. Nodal-based iterative calculations, performed on such a massive scale are frankly quite amazing things. But as you said, the model is driven by a set of components; and the extent to which each of those components influences the model is what we're really getting at when we talk about the question: anthropogenic?

And barring an actual clear understanding of the ways in which the various dynamics interact, we are left with mere drivers and their coefficients. Said coefficients derived not from fundamental physical law, but from dataset correlation. This is true no matter the model.
This is, for example, much the way that the dimensionless factors governing natural convective heat transfer over a finned heat sink with a total of n fins of x*y*t size, spaced s from center-to-center. The difference, of course, is that the coefficients in that case are the result of tens of thousands of controlled experiments. That is, empirical data. Out of this empirical data, the power of computing allows us to squash out a curve whose use will allow us to select coefficients for our heat transfer equations that accord with reality. Again, this is just the way modeling works.
No. There are many different types of models. You keep asserting that PCM is a curve fitting statistical model, when it isn't. It is a physical model.

Yes, in the lab, you can study heat exchanges between metal and air. In the lab, you can also study heat exchanges between air masses. You can shine light at varying intensities and frequencies through air which contains various amounts of gasses and particulates. You can learn all the equations and all the constants in the lab with air much the same way as one can with your heat exchanger example. When building a physical model, the form of the equations used in the model match physical reality as measured in the lab and in the world.

Have these constants been checked in many different ways? Have these contestants been refined in statistical based models as well as by lab work? Sure they have. However, once again, this is a physical model. You put in fixed constants rather than curve fitting.

Meehl did, however, tweak the constants. They did it, however, in the opposite order from what you imply. First, they verified that the model worked and was linear based on the established constants from lab work and other modeling methods. Then, after verifying they had a good and linear model, they attempted to plug in other values of the constants to see if there were other values which worked equally well or better.

The short answer is no. They could explain the first half of the 20th century decently with strong solar variations and weak greenhouse. They could explain the second half of the 20th Century with strong greenhouse and low solar forcing. They could not find a way to tweak the coefficients to match reality over the entire 20th Century other than using the established peer reviewed consensus values.

I am not saying they tried every possible value for every possible constant. No way. However they did check the obvious, the denialist claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and that the effects of solar forcing are underestimated. The further you move the constants away from the peer reviewed scientific consensus, the worse the correlation between model output and measured reality.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Are you serious? You have a hard time seeing why Government would waste time and money on something?

For god's sake, that's practically what they do...
Hmm... Should have expected more ad-hominem attacks on character and values.

I've dealt more than a little with government procurement offices, mostly military. Their culture is not perfect. However, they generally err in the direction of asking for ruggedized gold plated widgets that do the impossible in salt air, desert heat and arctic cold. The result does not seem cost effective to the civilian eye, but for some reason the guys going in harms way want the best and want it to work. In the last few decades, they have tended to ask for too much. They get wonder machines that can do the implausible after long cost overruns. They tend to be hard to maintain and have too much downtime.

I worked one ugly project where they wanted a satellite dish and a small telephone exchange mounted on the back of a Hummer. The capacity they asked for required a certain amount of power. Power implies heat. The model of Hummer they specified implied a weight requirement. Between power, heat and weight they were basically asking for the not-quite-impossible, and truly impossible given the fourth constraint of budget.

The current military establishment is a bit overly fond of their fancy toys, not fond enough of boots on the ground. However, they do know how to oversee a technical project much better than you imply. They might not know what to ask for, but by the time you build it they know what they are buying. They have turf wars of their own. They fight to have their projects work better than the next office across the corridor. They are genuine believers that their missions are important.

But, sure, if your values disrespect scientists and government employees, continue argument by slander. This is not quite the same as asserting everyone one disagrees with is Hitler, but demonizing everyone who produces science you don't like isn't convincing.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
The scientific basis to doubt The Model is the same scientific basis to doubt any other Holy Writ. That is: it claims to explain more than the data should allow it to explain. The very next reason to doubt is the fact that, unlike for example Einstein with his theories which purported to do something quite similar, the Writ is flogged with a righteous furor, and skeptics are treated not with reasoned arguments and 'let's design an experiment to check this out', but with opprobrium, and hand- and Writ-waving. I don't have a much more scientific basis than that for my skepticism regarding those who preach to impending Rapture, either. But I don't let that get me down...
Here you return to argument by slander again, attempting to confuse scientific and religious methods for acquiring truth. Yes, if a scientist proposes something different, anything different, some will respond with slander, emotion, lies about methodology and other worthless noise. You get the Pope going after Galileo, Bush 43 censoring scientists, and bloggers publishing unreviewed pseudo-science. The real scientists perform experiments, take measurements, build models, publish peer reviewed papers, and in general advance knowledge. If there is a little noise outside the scientific community, in the long run the scientific process gets it right.

Where I loose you is when you can't tell who is being emotional, who is arguing by slander rather than fact, and who is being obstructionist as opposed to who is doing science. The skeptics continue a chorus of vague disbelief, but fail to produce models that work at all, let alone models that improve on the peer reviewed consensus of the published scientific community. There are lots of people with political or economic reasons to pretend CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. They have the motive and means to produce a model that reflects their motives. Heck, they can try what Meehl tried, using an existing model, breaking it by changing constants, and seeing if they can fix it by plugging in different constants.

They just haven't been able to do it. They hem and haw and wave their hands and hint that there must be some set of constants that would make the model say what they want it to say. They simply have not been able to produce the science.







Post#436 at 05-01-2007 11:11 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-01-2007, 11:11 AM #436
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
This is, for example, much the way that the dimensionless factors governing natural convective heat transfer over a finned heat sink with a total of n fins of x*y*t size, spaced s from center-to-center. The difference, of course, is that the coefficients in that case are the result of tens of thousands of controlled experiments. That is, empirical data. Out of this empirical data, the power of computing allows us to squash out a curve whose use will allow us to select coefficients for our heat transfer equations that accord with reality
This seems confused. You have conduction in the sink and conventive heat transfer at the surface of the sink. Assuming steady-state there is one coefficient for the conduction problem, thermal conductivity for the material of construction for the sink. No "fitted coefficients" here.

You will need heat transfer coefficients or similar information for your boundary conditions.

To get these you need to solve the convection problem too. For this problem you will have the thermal conductivity, specific heat, density and viscosity of the fluid surrounding the sink (probably air), plus the acceleration of gravity. All of these are physical constants. Once again, no "fitted" coefficients.

All you have to do is simultaneously solve the nonisothermal versions of the Navier Stokes equations for the fluid and the conduction problem in the sink.

You could try to solve the equations numerically, i.e. computational fluid dynamics of the fluid coupled with conduction in the sink. All the coefficients are physical constants. You wouldm't use the empirical results. There are no "coefficients" to fit.

This is hard to do. Another approach would be to split the problem in two and solve the harder free convection problem for the fluid empirically, by running experiments to develop correlations based on the Prandtl and Grashof numbers from which you get your heat transfer coefficients. This is your "tens of thousands of experiments" although that is an exageration. You don't need a computer to do this.

Then given your correlations for the heat transfer coefficients, plug them into a computer model for conduction in the sink.

There is no coefficient selection here.
Last edited by Mikebert; 05-01-2007 at 11:28 AM.







Post#437 at 05-01-2007 11:17 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
05-01-2007, 11:17 AM #437
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
No. There are many different types of models. You keep asserting that PCM is a curve fitting statistical model, when it isn't. It is a physical model.
No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that the source of the coefficients governing the relative impact of the various inputs into the GW models are obtained by statistical curve-fitting techniques. This is not about the workings of the model -- which, as a piece of programming, is sublime -- but about the fundaments upon which the model reckons itself. Are you truly incapable of seeing the point I am making, or is it intentional?
Yes, in the lab, you can study heat exchanges between metal and air. In the lab, you can also study heat exchanges between air masses. You can shine light at varying intensities and frequencies through air which contains various amounts of gasses and particulates. You can learn all the equations and all the constants in the lab with air much the same way as one can with your heat exchanger example. When building a physical model, the form of the equations used in the model match physical reality as measured in the lab and in the world.
Yes. Which they haven't been for the GW models. There is no broad-based comaprison-with-reality -- just various presumptive-datasets speaking to the exact same period, which only occupies a very small number of year-iterations!.
However, once again, this is a physical model. You put in fixed constants rather than curve fitting.
Where did the coefficients come from???!!! (I feel the Mogambo-punctuation is somewhat justified at this point in our discussion). From some form of statistical curve-fitting. That's how it is done. Haven't you ever done science before?
Hmm... Should have expected more ad-hominem attacks on character and values.
Character and values? Haven't you ever heard of DARPA? Most of the money they spend is pissed away; they do it because the pay-off on the vanishingly few projects which amount to anything is worth the time and money wasted on all the others.
And the Star Wars boondoggle?
I'm sorry that reality insults you.
But, sure, if your values disrespect scientists and government employees, continue argument by slander.
Argument by slander? You're the one who used the virtues of governmental appropriations as a buttress to your argument that there must be something to AGW. It's not slander to suggest that reality indicates that your buttress isn't a very strong one...

And Godwin's it ain't. But then again, the misapplication of Godwin's is the first refuge of the barely defendable.
Here you return to argument by slander again, attempting to confuse scientific and religious methods for acquiring truth. Yes, if a scientist proposes something different, anything different, some will respond with slander, emotion, lies about methodology and other worthless noise. You get the Pope going after Galileo, Bush 43 censoring scientists, and bloggers publishing unreviewed pseudo-science. The real scientists perform experiments, take measurements, build models, publish peer reviewed papers, and in general advance knowledge.
So, since your pro-AGW crowd has yet to perform any experiments, where does that put them?
Where I loose you is when you can't tell who is being emotional, who is arguing by slander rather than fact, and who is being obstructionist as opposed to who is doing science. The skeptics continue a chorus of vague disbelief, but fail to produce models that work at all, let alone models that improve on the peer reviewed consensus of the published scientific community.
Setting aside the latest incidence of your Argument from Authority (and/or Numbers), it's worth pointing out that a perfectly valid scientific position is: We Don't Know Yet. Paraticularly for a science still in its 'natural history'-infancy like climatology, that's a perfectly acceptable place to be. Effort needs to be spent on understanding the scope of the science before wee start drawing firm lines around what-we-currently-have, declaring it The Truth, and closing our eyes to anything that might be left outside.
I appreciate that it makes you feel bad to be cast in a quasi-religious light; can you at least see how, to one of the unconvinced, the behavior of the [vast majority of, let's say] AGW-proponents might seem a bit dogmatic?
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#438 at 05-01-2007 11:24 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,502]
---
05-01-2007, 11:24 AM #438
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,502

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
I'm glad to see you use the word "some" here. The only successful treatments are surgical. Everything else is just an illusion.
Vaccines and antibiotics are an illusion?







Post#439 at 05-01-2007 12:46 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-01-2007, 12:46 PM #439
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
The only successful treatments are surgical. Everything else is just an illusion. Our health care system is a collosal failure. We keep making these fabulous discoveries, but people are incredibly unhealthy. Somehow people still believe in the miracles of modern science. Justin is right, it's no different than any other religion.
The mistake people make is not to believe in medicine, but to believe in it to the exclusion of diet, exercise, habits, and attitude. Medicine won't keep you healthy if you smoke two packs a day, drink like a fish, sit on your ass all day long and eat junk food. That doesn't mean it's powerless.

There's also a gap between believing in the "miracles" of modern science and believing that all science amounts to superstition. Somewhere between those two irrational extremes the truth lies.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#440 at 05-01-2007 02:27 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
05-01-2007, 02:27 PM #440
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
The problem -- and I've said it before -- is that this whole mass of good ideas (energy efficiency, pollution reduction, and so forth) is being so tightly tied the the scientifically-shaky proposition that humans are a primary cause of a rise in the planet's temperature.
I understand this, but what I don't understand is why that bothers you. There have been earnest world-changers for thousands of years; they come and they go, usually leaving the world only a little worse off. So what? Maybe it's just because I'm a core Xer, and my response to anything that starts off with "it's for your own good" is just an eyeroll.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
It just doesn't seem a good idea to some of us to risk discrediting things that really are important just to be able to more strongly flog the Cause-of-the-Day.
Aha, now perhaps here is the root of the emotional response. What exactly are the important things you feel are being discredited here by the Global Warming discussion?
Yes we did!







Post#441 at 05-01-2007 02:33 PM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
05-01-2007, 02:33 PM #441
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
I can see where the 'holy war' comment might be coming from. There is a values clash here.
Yes, the more-heat-than-light nature of this thread and the rest of the public discourse would seem to indicate that. But what exactly is the values clash? Are we really revisiting the fundamental epistemological questions of the validity of the scientific method? I thought we had resolved those issues a few centuries ago.
Yes we did!







Post#442 at 05-01-2007 02:47 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
05-01-2007, 02:47 PM #442
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
Yes, the more-heat-than-light nature of this thread and the rest of the public discourse would seem to indicate that. But what exactly is the values clash? Are we really revisiting the fundamental epistemological questions of the validity of the scientific method? I thought we had resolved those issues a few centuries ago.
I think we have, and I think that's just a distraction here. The real issue involves community versus individuality. Those on this thread who take a skeptical position all seem to be libertarians. Tackling an issue the size of global warming, requiring the kind of change to our economy that one necessitates, means a swing to community. We can't scatter and atomize as much. We have to pull together. Whether it's voluntary or coerced, that means a sacrifice of personal autonomy, at least temporarily.

That's the motive. Everything else springs from that. Justin and the Rani are too smart to fool themselves into thinking A doesn't imply B, so they deny A.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#443 at 05-01-2007 03:06 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-01-2007, 03:06 PM #443
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Andy '85 View Post
Am I one of the few who feels that global warming, whatever form you take it in, should not be the end to justify the means?
Well, strictly speaking, I believe the "end" should be to keep our planet habitable for human life and to take steps to cause as little pain as possible for those people who might be most impacted by rising ocean levels (I don't think there's any debate that ocean levels are rising, and that this is having an effect on people).

Is it the only way to convince people to practice environmentally sound policies in terms of gas emissions?
I wouldn't think so. There are plenty of economic and political reasons to conserve energy and to use it more efficiently.







Post#444 at 05-01-2007 03:07 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-01-2007, 03:07 PM #444
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
No you're not. But when you try to point that out to a True Believer, you get the same sort of screams of "Heretic! Heretic!" that you would trying to explain to a Bible thumper that atheists can be ethical people, too.
And actually, there's not too much of that going on right here anyway.







Post#445 at 05-01-2007 03:26 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-01-2007, 03:26 PM #445
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
The problem -- and I've said it before -- is that this whole mass of good ideas (energy efficiency, pollution reduction, and so forth) is being so tightly tied the the scientifically-shaky proposition that humans are a primary cause of a rise in the planet's temperature.

It just doesn't seem a good idea to some of us to risk discrediting things that really are important just to be able to more strongly flog the Cause-of-the-Day.
If it really is important to become more energy efficient and less polluting, then just do it. It then becomes a matter of will.

As far as I can see, we aren't really in disagreement about the action items, just the reasons why the actions are being taken.

And, just for fun, we can see if taking action actually makes a difference long-term.







Post#446 at 05-01-2007 03:35 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-01-2007, 03:35 PM #446
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
The only successful treatments are surgical. Everything else is just an illusion.
Are insulin injections illusional? Blood pressure medications? Cholesterol reducers?

Our health care system is a collosal failure.
That's because it's based upon the profit motive.

We keep making these fabulous discoveries, but people are incredibly unhealthy. Somehow people still believe in the miracles of modern science. Justin is right, it's no different than any other religion.
You're talking about lifestyle rather than medicine. The trick is to live a healthy lifestyle as much as possible, but use medical techniques when necessary. I don't like pills much myself, but I take one medication every day because my body just doesn't regulate itself properly in one particular area. The pills have never failed me.







Post#447 at 05-01-2007 03:42 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-01-2007, 03:42 PM #447
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I think we have, and I think that's just a distraction here. The real issue involves community versus individuality. Those on this thread who take a skeptical position all seem to be libertarians. Tackling an issue the size of global warming, requiring the kind of change to our economy that one necessitates, means a swing to community. We can't scatter and atomize as much. We have to pull together. Whether it's voluntary or coerced, that means a sacrifice of personal autonomy, at least temporarily.

That's the motive. Everything else springs from that. Justin and the Rani are too smart to fool themselves into thinking A doesn't imply B, so they deny A.
And any kind of community means social pressure, and coercion, and all that other horrible stuff....







Post#448 at 05-01-2007 04:28 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
05-01-2007, 04:28 PM #448
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I think we have, and I think that's just a distraction here. The real issue involves community versus individuality. Those on this thread who take a skeptical position all seem to be libertarians. Tackling an issue the size of global warming, requiring the kind of change to our economy that one necessitates, means a swing to community. We can't scatter and atomize as much. We have to pull together. Whether it's voluntary or coerced, that means a sacrifice of personal autonomy, at least temporarily.

That's the motive. Everything else springs from that. Justin and the Rani are too smart to fool themselves into thinking A doesn't imply B, so they deny A.
Exactly. Libertarians deny AGW because it threatens their world view. They put ideology ahead of science, kind of like how the Soviets fell for Lysenko because his Lamarckist nonsense fit the environmental determinism of Marxist dogma.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#449 at 05-01-2007 04:34 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
05-01-2007, 04:34 PM #449
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Constants and Values

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that the source of the coefficients governing the relative impact of the various inputs into the GW models are obtained by statistical curve-fitting techniques. This is not about the workings of the model -- which, as a piece of programming, is sublime -- but about the fundaments upon which the model reckons itself. Are you truly incapable of seeing the point I am making, or is it intentional?Yes. Which they haven't been for the GW models. There is no broad-based comaprison-with-reality -- just various presumptive-datasets speaking to the exact same period, which only occupies a very small number of year-iterations!.Where did the coefficients come from???!!! (I feel the Mogambo-punctuation is somewhat justified at this point in our discussion). From some form of statistical curve-fitting. That's how it is done. Haven't you ever done science before?
Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
This seems confused. You have conduction in the sink and conventive heat transfer at the surface of the sink. Assuming steady-state there is one coefficient for the conduction problem, thermal conductivity for the material of construction for the sink. No "fitted coefficients" here... (Much more of same...)
Mike's post answers better than I could. He seems to have done some heat transfer problems recently, and knows the proper names for the constants and coefficients, all of which are well known and can be measured in the lab. I tend to agree with Mike that science of heat transfer tends to use descriptive equations, rather than using curves. These equations and the many constants imbedded in them are lab verifiable.

Why you think a physical model would attempt to rediscover these constants on the fly statistically, I don't know. The properties of air are known and measurable.

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
I appreciate that it makes you feel bad to be cast in a quasi-religious light; can you at least see how, to one of the unconvinced, the behavior of the [vast majority of, let's say] AGW-proponents might seem a bit dogmatic?
Quote Originally Posted by Finch View Post
Yes, the more-heat-than-light nature of this thread and the rest of the public discourse would seem to indicate that. But what exactly is the values clash? Are we really revisiting the fundamental epistemological questions of the validity of the scientific method? I thought we had resolved those issues a few centuries ago.
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I think we have, and I think that's just a distraction here. The real issue involves community versus individuality. Those on this thread who take a skeptical position all seem to be libertarians. Tackling an issue the size of global warming, requiring the kind of change to our economy that one necessitates, means a swing to community. We can't scatter and atomize as much. We have to pull together. Whether it's voluntary or coerced, that means a sacrifice of personal autonomy, at least temporarily.

That's the motive. Everything else springs from that. Justin and the Rani are too smart to fool themselves into thinking A doesn't imply B, so they deny A.
That's my evaluation of the problem as well. The very few people who are challenging the role of science in understanding climate have strong libertarian political values. As a fundamentalist must deny evolution to maintain an absolute certainty in the truth of the Bible, a libertarian must deny the study of climate to maintain an absolute certainty that collective action by the government is evil. The political values of these few individuals are trumping the scientific values. While for most the epistemology of science is well settled, a few simply have to make exceptions when their religious or political values conflict with scientific evidence.

Political theory trumping other academic fields is a known problem. The worst case examples might be the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. The gap between Marxist theory and how the real world works is part of why there aren't that many practicing Marxists left in a position to duplicate Mao's mistakes. In the great Chinese 2T clash between 'reds' and 'experts,' the experts eventually got their place at the table.

Since the Great Depression, laissez faire libertarians have also had problems gaining enough power for their theories to do much harm. The real opposition to action on global warming comes from the crony capitalists more interested in short term profits than long term political and economic stability. We just don't seem to have any crony capitalists around these forums to argue from that set of values.
Last edited by Bob Butler 54; 05-01-2007 at 04:37 PM. Reason: Forgot to run the spell checker...







Post#450 at 05-01-2007 04:57 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
05-01-2007, 04:57 PM #450
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by The Rani View Post
Absolutely. The use of antibiotics has resulted in the emergence of treatment-resistant bacteria, and vaccinations have been linked with the emergence of immune system diseases.
I would characterize that as the mis-use of antibiotics. Doctors overprescribed them. I would not blame science for that, rather an all-too-human tendency to use hammers to kill flies.
-----------------------------------------