An unconvenient truth

[firstcontact]

http://www.bestofgooglevideo.com/

[Van Rijn]

And? What is it? Care to tell us a little about this link?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And? What is it? Care to tell us a little about this link?
It's bits of an Al Gore speech about anthropogenic global warming with some dark, driving "action" music, put together in the form of a movie trailer...

[antoniseb]

This touches some things which have proven to be hot button issues on this forum in the past. I'll be watching this thread fairly carefully to make sure things stay civil and apolitical (except for the politics related to space exploration and astronomy).

Al Gore speech about anthropogenic global warming
n.b. The words spoken in the clip do not specifically say that the global warming is anthropogenic (though he did say exactly once in the clip that the concensus of scientists is that it is anthropogenic). This is a clip for a 100 minute movie that will be released later this year.

[mugaliens]

I found it interesting that one responder on the site mentioned something about "thirty years" yet the clip cites the ten hottest years happening in the last fourteen.

I guess if there's a peak, it had to happen sometime. The question remains if it's a trend or a variation?

[Gillianren]

Can I just point out that the word is "inconvenient"? I'm not an expert on global warming, nor do I pretend to be ("I have a degree in homeopathic medicine!"*), but that, I do know.

*Quote from a Futurama episode on global warming, featuring the head of Al Gore; the person who says it is waving a diploma clearly marked as being from my, and Matt Groening's, alma mater.

[firstcontact]

I didn't know it is going to be a movie ill look forward to it.

It's kinda not so much sad but weird that global warming ventures from a scientifical process involving greenhouse gases...to a political matter

[jrkeller]

It's kinda not so much sad but weird that global warming ventures from a scientifical process involving greenhouse gases...to a political matter

Climate modeling is the most difficult type of modeling that I know. I'm sure a lot of quatum mechanics stuff is more difficult, but I can't be sure. Anyway, the modeling is only in its infancy and most global warming climate modelers only look at few parameters things like gasses (CO2, methane), yet there are several dozen parameters that effect the weather which are not included in the models, yet they make bold claims about temperatures a 100 years from. About 20 years ago, there was the "hockey stick" predictions, rapid increases in temperature, that never came close to being true. It seems that everytime predictions are made, reality is not as bad. I think when it comes to most people and many politicians, heard it before and it was wrong, so why do anything.

When it comes to politics and global warming, the most visible and outspoken, at least in the public media are people like Al Gore and George Clooney (See the cover of this month's Vanity Fair). These are people who are what I call hypocrit advocates. The want us to accept human induced global warming, yet they own multiple homes, drive bigs cars, fly on private jets, etc and do nothing to set an example. What's really sad, is that Vanity Fair had some really good people they could have used for their cover, but were religated to the inside pages.

It's also politics, because countries like India and China are exempt the Kyoto treaty.

[TheBlackCat]

Anyway, the modeling is only in its infancy and most global warming climate modelers only look at few parameters things like gasses (CO2, methane), yet there are several dozen parameters that effect the weather which are not included in the models, yet they make bold claims about temperatures a 100 years from.
The whole point of a model is that they are simplified for the sake of feasibility. That does not make them wrong, and in fact simpler models with a few key parameters are often considered superior to ones that try to include everything (you can fit anything if you have enough parameter). I can tell you in my field models that have a lot of parameters are treated with suspicion simply because they can be used to fit any result.

Models are still able to, and in fact do, make useful predictions by focusing on what are though to be the most important parameters and neglecting ones that are thought to only play a small role. By comparing this to the data they can see whether their assumptions were correct. They can use this to make predictions, and if the predictions hold up then the model is likely close enough to the real workings that it can be used to draw some approximate conclusions from. I have made extremely simple models (relative the real system), so simple that you would swear there is no way they could possibly work, that are still able to reproduce the physiological results very well. The first model I made I was absolutely convinced it could never possibly work, I thought the simplifications I used were just too extreme, the assumptions too numerous, and the measurements too fuzzy to ever get any meaningful results. Then I ran it all the way through for the first time (i.e. no crashes), and out popped results that were quite similar to the real results. That was even before I worked out the numerous bugs that were negatively impacting the model. I was shocked. It taught me that just because a model is simplified does not make it wrong.

It seems that everytime predictions are made, reality is not as bad.
Something that is "not as bad" as something catastrophic is still pretty darn bad.

[Van Rijn]

It's kinda not so much sad but weird that global warming ventures from a scientifical process involving greenhouse gases...to a political matter

That happens with any scientific issue that may have political and economic consequences. And, just for this film, you have Al Gore, who is a rather polarizing political figure himself.

It goes way beyond climate change or climate change models to what you should do about it. Who wins, who loses, what are the best options? Lots and lots of arguments . . .

[jrkeller]

The whole point of a model is that they are simplified for the sake of feasibility. That does not make them wrong, and in fact simpler models with a few key parameters are often considered superior to ones that try to include everything (you can fit anything if you have enough parameter). I can tell you in my field models that have a lot of parameters are treated with suspicion simply because they can be used to fit any result.

Models are still able to, and in fact do, make useful predictions by focusing on what are though to be the most important parameters and neglecting ones that are thought to only play a small role. By comparing this to the data they can see whether their assumptions were correct. They can use this to make predictions, and if the predictions hold up then the model is likely close enough to the real workings that it can be used to draw some approximate conclusions from. I have made extremely simple models (relative the real system), so simple that you would swear there is no way they could possibly work, that are still able to reproduce the physiological results very well. The first model I made I was absolutely convinced it could never possibly work, I thought the simplifications I used were just too extreme, the assumptions too numerous, and the measurements too fuzzy to ever get any meaningful results. Then I ran it all the way through for the first time (i.e. no crashes), and out popped results that were quite similar to the real results. That was even before I worked out the numerous bugs that were negatively impacting the model. I was shocked. It taught me that just because a model is simplified does not make it wrong.

I don't disagree with you at all. In fact, I complete a lot of projects very quickly by doing just that. The problem is that from the climate modeling and research that I have examined, the jury is still out on which parameters are important or not. One of the major problems is that heat transfer through a participating media is that the constiteunts may have additive or subtractive effects and a simple model may not cover this effect.

On an interesting side note: Right now I'm doing a numerical study using a model with ten variables. As is typical, some variables are much more important than than others. I'm using a random number scheme to simultaneously vary each parameter. What I've found so far is that a large increase (change) in an important or dominating varaible may be offset with many smaller decreases.

Something that is "not as bad" as something catastrophic is still pretty darn bad.

I don't disagress with that, but the OP was asking why things got political and that's one of the reasons why. The public is told this gloom and doom story that in x amount of years it will get y degrees hotter and then it doesnt. Then it happens again and again

[TheBlackCat]

I don't know much about climate modelling, so I wll have to defer to you on this.

[firstcontact]

I am also no expert in climate modeling. When i see the images of the greenland ice sheet though and data comparisons from images takin in the past and now it's kinda disconcerting. However i know there are some voices saying that we don't have enough data to really make a true comparison relative to historicol norms even dating prior to recorded history. This last statement is a relief