Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Like to stare at clouds?; So does NASA.
Topic Started: Apr 20 2006, 06:46 AM (116 Views)
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/20/science/...0705&ei=5087%0A

Sounds pretty cool.

"But why/how in the crap did they get funding for this project? Couldn't we be working on something more important?"

Yeah. Read the 8th paragraph.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Taking the long view, there is nothing more important than R&D spending to the future survival and prosperity of our society. One reason for the DoD being the big-time research spender that it is.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
big al
Apr 20 2006, 06:50 AM
Taking the long view, there is nothing more important than R&D spending to the future survival and prosperity of our society. One reason for the DoD being the big-time research spender that it is.

Big Al

I totally agree big al, and to take it one step further I have no problem spending money on scientific endeavors that have little practical output, other than just plain knowing a little more about the world we live in.

But if you're a scientist hard up for grant money, and your project may yeild long-term, indirect results, it's gonna be a tough sell. The popular thing to do is attach some buzzwords on your project and hope that makes it more appealing. Not saying that's definitely the case here, but I wouldn't be surprised. Clouds have as much to do with global warming as your tire pressure has on your gas mileage.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Aqua Letifer
Apr 20 2006, 07:56 AM
big al
Apr 20 2006, 06:50 AM
Taking the long view, there is nothing more important than R&D spending to the future survival and prosperity of our society.  One reason for the DoD being the big-time research spender that it is.

Big Al

I totally agree big al, and to take it one step further I have no problem spending money on scientific endeavors that have little practical output, other than just plain knowing a little more about the world we live in.

But if you're a scientist hard up for grant money, and your project may yeild long-term, indirect results, it's gonna be a tough sell. The popular thing to do is attach some buzzwords on your project and hope that makes it more appealing. Not saying that's definitely the case here, but I wouldn't be surprised. Clouds have as much to do with global warming as your tire pressure has on your gas mileage.

Wrong!

Air pollution gets into clouds, causing changes in their ability to reflect sunlight. It's not global warming, it's global dimming. Rather than allowing sunlight to filter through the clouds to the ground, the particles cause sunlight to be reflected back and away from the earth.

This means that the earth's upper atmosphere is cooler than expected, which causes changes in the trade winds and other major weather patterns. Folks believe that global dimming may be responsible for the droughts in sub-saharan Africa, which brought massive famines to the region (remember Ethiopia?).

Some believe that airplane contrails contribute to global dimming. There's an interesting study done right after 9/11, when there was no airplane traffic allowed into or out of the US. The researchers found that temperatures actually increased in some parts of the US during the no fly period. Not proof, but intriguing.

Here's one story: BBC: Why the earth seems to be 'dimming'

Intriguing. Apparently many of the models of global warming improved dramatically once the effects of global dimming were included.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Nina you are beginning to sound like of of those hybrid owners. :rolleyes2:

All this talk is bad for the American economy you know. :mad2:

All that matters is money.

:P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Nina
Apr 20 2006, 07:16 AM
Aqua Letifer
Apr 20 2006, 07:56 AM
big al
Apr 20 2006, 06:50 AM
Taking the long view, there is nothing more important than R&D spending to the future survival and prosperity of our society.  One reason for the DoD being the big-time research spender that it is.

Big Al

I totally agree big al, and to take it one step further I have no problem spending money on scientific endeavors that have little practical output, other than just plain knowing a little more about the world we live in.

But if you're a scientist hard up for grant money, and your project may yeild long-term, indirect results, it's gonna be a tough sell. The popular thing to do is attach some buzzwords on your project and hope that makes it more appealing. Not saying that's definitely the case here, but I wouldn't be surprised. Clouds have as much to do with global warming as your tire pressure has on your gas mileage.

Wrong!

Air pollution gets into clouds, causing changes in their ability to reflect sunlight. It's not global warming, it's global dimming. Rather than allowing sunlight to filter through the clouds to the ground, the particles cause sunlight to be reflected back and away from the earth.

This means that the earth's upper atmosphere is cooler than expected, which causes changes in the trade winds and other major weather patterns. Folks believe that global dimming may be responsible for the droughts in sub-saharan Africa, which brought massive famines to the region (remember Ethiopia?).

Some believe that airplane contrails contribute to global dimming. There's an interesting study done right after 9/11, when there was no airplane traffic allowed into or out of the US. The researchers found that temperatures actually increased in some parts of the US during the no fly period. Not proof, but intriguing.

Here's one story: BBC: Why the earth seems to be 'dimming'

Intriguing. Apparently many of the models of global warming improved dramatically once the effects of global dimming were included.

*SIGH*

No, I'm not wrong. Clouds, just clouds, have very little to do with global warming.

Basically, it comes down to this. Global warming (or cooling, depending on which peer-reviewed Science article you read) is the product of many, MANY factors. So many in fact, it's very clear that we don't know what we're talking about when we try to explain the primary reasons for, well, whatever's happening to our global average temperature. I could find you some journal articles, all very credible, which state that clouds and jet exhaust have absolutley nothing to do with global warming. That doesn't make you wrong, Nina, since it's always going to be one set of scientists against the other. What it probably means, is that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

As for the models...

Quote:
 
Apparently many of the models of global warming improved dramatically once the effects of global dimming were included.


I'm fully comfortable with saying I guarentee any "global warming model" isn't worth the silicon it's imprinted on right now. There are just plain too many parameters out there, the time series is either too high or the resolution's too heavy, or the data's too limited. We're just plain not there yet.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I'm fully comfortable with saying I guarentee any "global warming model" isn't worth the silicon it's imprinted on right now. There are just plain too many parameters out there, the time series is either too high or the resolution's too heavy, or the data's too limited. We're just plain not there yet.


That's quite a claim Aqua, models don't have to be perfect to be worth something afterall. Even relatively crude approximations can give you something usefull as long as you don't go nuts and forget the level of theory/approximation you are using.

I don't really know how these global models work beyond a few sentences of handwaving. So i don't really know how much of the complexity of the interactions present in the environment are expected to emerge from the level of theory being used (how many parameters you need depends on the level of theory afterall), or how many fudge factors there are, how much the models are trained etc. I mean it's plausible that the models are essentially trying to achieve an outcome which is absurd for the level approximation used, but it seems odd that they would get funding if it was that obvious they were doomed to fail. Never the less it's not my field at all so perhaps you have an internal insight on these matters? (your in enviro-chem right?)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Clouds, just clouds, have a heck of a lot to do with temperature and weather patterns. Where they form, how they form, where they move, where they choose to dump their moisture. Why do you immediately assume that any modification to clouds has nothing to do with temperature and weather patterns?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
I didn't say that, and perhaps my meaning was not clear, but clouds in and of themselves are not the major parameter in global warming.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Oh. Agreed. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply