My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

The problem is that the whole Global Warming Apocalypse thing is based on computer models. Climate is a chaotic system. The Computer models we have simply do not have all the initial conditions. You can't trust them. It's just that simple.

 

And they successfully model past climates, how exactly? Did they just throw a bunch of garbage into a bin, shake it up, and wind up with successful reconstructions of past climates by chance?

 

Show me which model specifically is wrong and where. Until then, you are waving your hands about and expecting the rest of us to take you seriously.

 

 

The fact is, the models work, and we've covered this exact claim repeatedly in this very thread.

 

 

U. study substantiates computer models for global warming — Department of Meteorology

 

Computer models used to predict climate change are remarkably accurate when measured against actual weather, according to a new study by University of Utah meteorologists. The findings are expected to boost the role of such models in shaping public policy to confront the menacing specter of global warming, generally believed to be caused by rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon from fossil fuel-burning industries.

 

<...>

 

The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.

 

Another important aspect of the research is that climate models built in the U.S. are now some of the best models worldwide.

 

 

AMS Online Journals - How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?

 

Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.

 

 

 

Further, you are making a strawman by suggesting that the ONLY thing we have to go on for these conclusions is computer models. I think we can all pretty well reject that assertion on its face.

 

We know the role of carbon in the atmosphere. We know our contributions of carbon to the atmosphere. We know many of the domino effects of an increasing average global climate.

 

Burying your head in the sand or taking your ball and going home isn't going to save you on this one.

[Overdog]

And they successfully model past climates, how exactly? Did they just throw a bunch of garbage into a bin, shake it up, and wind up with successful reconstructions of past climates by chance?

 

Which model predicted the ten year cooling trend?

 

I'm saying we don't don't know the initial conditions for a chaotic system. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[Grains]

The Great Global Warming Swindle was a film where they touched on this. These guys had a pretty interesting study where they talk about the influence of water vapor on climate change

 

"Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming."

 

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[InfiniteNow]

I'm saying we don't don't know the initial conditions for a chaotic system. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

I ask again. Which models specifically are you challenging?

[InfiniteNow]

The Great Global Warming Swindle was a film where they touched on this. These guys had a pretty interesting study where they talk about the influence of water vapor on climate change

 

"Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming."

 

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Do you present data which has been proven false on purpose, or are you truly just badly uninformed on the topic?

 

 

The Great Global Warming Swindle" has been shown to have quite a few problems, and demonstrated that it is itself a swindle.

 

 

This link does a pretty good job of showing why:

 

The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science

 

 

...and also here:

 

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle

 

 

I particularly like this study published in Proceedings of The Royal Society in June 2007 which speaks specifically against the root of the claims being used by the GGW Swindle (emphasis mine):

 

The Royal Society - Article

 

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.

Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

 

 

Check your sources, kids. Not all of them are valid.

[Overdog]

I ask again. Which models specifically are you challenging?

 

All of them.

[InfiniteNow]

All of them.

 

What parts? The data I've seen has been accurate.

 

Would it have been better or more understandable had I said "precisely" which models instead of "specifically?" :hihi:

[Grains]

Do you present data which has been proven false on purpose, or are you truly just badly uninformed on the topic?

 

 

This is the first time I came across this particular documentary. The links you provided were informative. I didn't see any reference in your links though that disproved their theory on water vapor.

[REASON]

I find myself constantly amazed at how people pick and choose when science deserves credibility.

 

"Hey, science is great for everything, except Evolution. I don't believe in that so science has it all wrong on that one."

 

"No. Science is right on the money with Evolution. It's the Big Bang that's all wrong."

 

"No, no, you fools. Evolution and the Big Bang are excellent theories, but Quantum Mechanics?.....Forget about it."

 

"No, no, no, you guys are all wrong. Science has developed some solid, well supported theories with all of those topics. But when it comes to Global Climate Change, this science is just a big hoax."

 

 

I think it's worthwhile for each of us to try and understand why we pick and choose what scientific research we find legitimate. I'm not saying that we should blindly follow science, or that we should never challenge an accepted theory. I just find it interesting how people will resist certain areas of scientific research, even in the face of some pretty overwhelming evidence.

 

In these instances, I tend to think that the method is not the problem. :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

I didn't see any reference in your links though that disproved their theory on water vapor.

Water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for up to 2 weeks, whereas CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for more than a century.

 

Also, water vapour accounts for only a tiny fraction of the issue, as it's not a radiative forcing, but is a feedback. You can't successfully argue against what you don't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor' | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

 

Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

 

 

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

 

 

 

RealClimate

 

Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the principle absorber of this radiation (and acknowledged as such by everybody). But exactly how important is it? In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal).

 

 

Stoat: Water vapour is not the dominant greenhouse gas

[Grains]

Water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for up to 2 weeks, whereas CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for more than a century.

 

Also, water vapour accounts for only a tiny fraction of the issue, as it's not a radiative forcing, but is a feedback. You can't successfully argue against what you don't understand.

 

 

cool thanks for posting that I was just out looking around the net! very informative...

 

you said I can't successfully argue what you don't understand.....i wasnt arguing the fact that it was true???

 

1. I posted link

2. You posted link providing more information

3. I said I didn't see anything in that about vapor

4. You posted good information that was helpful

 

Never said it was true or not true....jeez

[modest]

 

i cant see this chart to well but I think the blue line is the logarithmic trendline correct? which is trending down correct?

 

This doesn't inspire confidence. Blue is temp, red is trend, error bars are error bars.

 

~modest

[Grains]

This doesn't inspire confidence. Blue is temp, red is trend, error bars are error bars.

 

~modest

 

 

modest the chart is still in a downward trend

 

regardless of what you say red is not a trendline, it cant be....it looks like the mean/average to me after looking at the graph and your excel sheet..for a trendline to be perfectly parallel to the x axis their would have to be no changes in data over the whole time period...

 

 

Trend Lines - StockCharts.com

[Grains]

I just felt like recapping the last 6 pages of posts because I think somewhere their has been a miscommunication between myself and the rest of the mob :hihi:

 

1. I posted link and graph

2. Infinatenow said pop a trend line on it

3. I popped a trend line on a graph

4. Infinatenow said the trendline was wrong

5. I said a trend line cannot be wrong granted you are doing along with definition of the trend line and not making green streaks across a graph for no particular reason.

 

Trend Lines - StockCharts.com

 

6. Others and infinatenow begin to say my graph is of a short time period (which I have never strongly supported the time period I just popped a trendline like he asked me to and simply was stating my trendline was not wrong)

 

In between all that their was other discussion but I just wanted to get my main point out there because it has been lost through the thread. Regardless if you like the period of 1988-2008 or 1998-2008 or 2007-2008 or you just don't think it's a good pool of data the trend line on that particular chart is still going down. We can talk about 10,000 year graphs or 600 million year graphs but that has nothing do do with what I originally posted. My original statement was from 1988 to 2008 the trend is going down. I don't care if you think its going to start going back up, stay the same, or go down. The trendline as of right now has nothing to do with any of that. Nothing more than that......the trendline is still going down on that time period...

[modest]

regardless of what you say red is not a trendline, it cant be....it looks like the mean/average to me after looking at the graph and your excel sheet..

 

Well, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with excel. That's the most accurate trend it can generate.

 

for a trendline to be perfectly parallel to the x axis their would have to be no changes in data over the whole time period...

 

"no changes in data over the whole time period" is a flat line. So, that's wrong. If you really want to convince yourself its correct look at how much area the data points make above the trend and below. If they are equal then that's a good indication the trend is accurate. They look equal to me.

 

~modest

 

EDIT:

 

also, to change the type of trend line in excel you can right click on the trend line and click format trendline.

 

~modest

[Grains]

Well, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with excel. That's the most accurate trend it can generate.

 

no

 

"no changes in data over the whole time period" is a flat line.

 

exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and your saying thats your trendline...

 

So, that's wrong. If you really want to convince yourself its correct look at how much area the data points make above the trend and below. If they are equal then that's a good indication the trend is accurate. They look equal to me.

not a trendline

 

Again....

Trend Lines - StockCharts.com

[Grains]

here....

 

all you have to do is connect the peaks...regardless of where the peaks are thats where the trend lines go..