Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iggypkrebsbach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Nothing you have written here supports your contention. There is nothing to a argue. You think the report is unreasonable - for some reason…?
Click to expand...
I would have thought pointing out that since the report is based on model predictions, and the models in a key section predicted seven times more warming that actually occurred, it might have made the point about the politicization of science. Noting that the first such report was obviously flawed, and that the head “scientist” was aware of the deficiencies yet published the report anyway simply reinforces pretty much everything iggypkrebsbach has said about the shenanigans and misbehavior of the alarmists.
Click to expand...
You didn’t say where you got the info that the models predicted seven times more warming than actually happened, so it is hard for others to follow your argument and research the context of your source.
 
Dear Mr. Ender,

Great find!!

Outstanding!!!

Can you post the graph? It is OUTSTANDING !!!

HERE IS THE SUMMARY text:

What You Won’t Find in the New National Climate Assessment
Guest Blogger / 1 day ago November 3, 2017
Guest essay by Dr. Pat Michaels

Under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the federal government has been charged with producing large National Climate Assessments (NCA), and today the most recent iteration has arrived. It is typical of these sorts of documents–much about how the future of mankind is doomed to suffer through increasingly erratic weather and other tribulations. It’s also missing a few tidbits of information that convincingly argue that everything in it with regard to upcoming 21st century climate needs to be taken with a mountain of salt.

The projections in the NCA are all based upon climate models. If there is something big that is systematically wrong with them, then the projections aren’t worth making or believing.

Here’s the first bit of missing information:
Source:


click there and scroll down for the world’s most outstanding graph!!!
 
Last edited:
To be valid science it must submit to scrutiny, otherwise it’s untested
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You didn’t say where you got the info that the models predicted seven times more warming than actually happened, so it is hard for others to follow your argument and research the context of your source.
Click to expand...
Here.
Click to expand...
In reading Dr. Michaels’ blog I was unable to verify the claims he made with data that didn’t come from Dr. Michaels. He claims his main chart (the one Monte likes so much) came from data published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. He cites this publication as his source. I suggest everyone go and try to read through that source first and see if you come up with the same conclusion he did. I could not find the data that he says is the source for this chart. Maybe it is there. The whole report is 104 Mbytes, so I suppose it is possible. But anyone critically reading Michaels’ blog would want to check that out before taking his word for it.

But let’s move on and assume that the data is correct. What does the chart show? It shows data in the tropics only. Not only that, it shows data for the upper atmosphere only. And of course it includes only measurement you can get with balloons or satellites - no surface temperatures. Looking at the graph it appears that the satellite measurements have been re-analyzed to show less warming. Hmm… You mean the raw data has been tinkered with? “Adjusted?” Wow! And I thought that was the exclusive domain of the alarmists who are always adjusting surface temperature to show more warming. To be clear, I don’t really object to proper re-analysis of instrumental data, and I have no reason to think this re-analysis is corrupt in any way. But let’s just remember this lesson the next time someone cries “Climategate!”

So we have a chart that shows how the models predicted the upper atmosphere over the tropics to have seven times more warming than satellite and balloon readings gave. Michaels goes to claim (without proof) that these projections and actual readings are “key” to the whole theory - that an inaccuracy in this narrow area throws serious doubt over the validity of the model predictions for overall average global temperature. I would like to see that claim supported by data from a friendly, or at least unbiased, source.

I eagerly await the enlightenment from my skeptical friends here on these questions.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
That’s that one I commented about. Why not address my concerns about it? Why is it a “good one?” (besides the fact that is supports your view.)
Click to expand...
Here is a more detailed discussion on the source as it was presented to the Senate.

Climate models versus climate reality | Climate Etc.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to read anyone else’s opinion on what that source says. I want to read it in the source itself. If we are going to rely on what various people say about this data, rather than read the sources of data themselves, we have just crossed over into the territory of “appeal to authority” arguments. Now don’t get me wrong. I do not think an appeal to authority is necessarily a logical fallacy. Sometimes it is the only argument and it is the best argument and totally valid. But if we are going to allow it, then I want to be able to present my authorities and not have people say “appeal to authority” to me. Ender first presented the “fact” that the models used in the latest climate assessment show warming seven times faster than reality, and that this is damning evidence against their validity. I challenged Ender on that “fact” and have yet to see it supported other than by certain people’s analyses. These people say the data comes straight from the primary source that I linked. Yet I cannot find it. All people have been showing me is other people telling me what is there rather than someone pointing to the primary source and saying “Right there. See? It’s right there.”

I am willing to go along with any ground rules you guys want to set out for this debate (appeal to authority vs. no appeal to authority). But whatever they are, I want them to be applied consistently to both sides of the debate.
 
I said: They want to be able to say that the warming since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution is unprecedented, because then they can point to the sudden release of CO2 from the burning off fossil fuels as the most likely cause.
LeafByNiggle said:
It is unprecedented since the dawn of instrumental readings, which do go back somewhat before the industrial revolution. That is enough to give evidence as to the cause, and it is only part of the evidence that supports the theory.
Click to expand...
Given what we know about the lack of integrity in the surface temp record, that is not a safe conclusion.

The 30’s and 40’s have been adjusted down, and the late 20th century temps are still contaminated, if not adjusted upward. If the 30’s and 40’s were as high or higher than the late 20th century, then there goes “The hottest year-decade EVAH!”
 
I said : This why the Medieval Warm Period had to go.
LeafByNiggle said:
It has not gone anywhere.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, I would argue further that there was a Medieval Warm Period which was as hot or hotter than the late 20th century to the present.

I said: And yes, there was a conspiracy. Read Montford’s two books. They lay it all out in gory detail.
If I cited a book that I said would convince you that global warming was real, would you go out and buy it? No? Well, don’t expect anyone else to go out and buy a book just because you say it will support your point. If you want to use Montford as a reference, then you can copy out the relevant passages and post them here and then people can read them.
Click to expand...
I guess you are right. It is unfair of me. Tell you what. I will read two books you suggest, and you read Montford’s two books. Deal?
 
Last edited:
If you are just going to deflect when I give you a credible source from a reputable scientist, just stop engaging in discussion. You show no integrity in the debate.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So we have a chart that shows how the models predicted the upper atmosphere over the tropics to have seven times more warming than satellite and balloon readings gave. Michaels goes to claim (without proof) that these projections and actual readings are “key” to the whole theory - that an inaccuracy in this narrow area throws serious doubt over the validity of the model predictions for overall average global temperature. I would like to see that claim supported by data from a friendly, or at least unbiased, source.

I eagerly await the enlightenment from my skeptical friends here on these questions.
Click to expand...
Hi LBN,

Hope you had a good weekend. I went to a wedding in Watertown, SD, a delightful place for a destination wedding! [ad paid for by the local Chamber of Commerce]

I would be curious too. Are there any other comparisons between model predictions and “measured” temps?
 
Last edited:
The climate has changed through the millennia, as geological evidence indicates. (Think about it; the best wine in Europe at one point in medieval times came from ENGLAND due to the climate as it then existed.)

However, I think you are looking at a narrower question, one of whether recent climate change has been caused by or contributed to by human activity. This narrower question is often posed upon a premise that the change is bad and often accompanies a concomitant challenge to enact restrictions on human activity to stop furthering or contributing to the climate change.

I think it is reasonable for you to be skeptical of this narrower question and the assumptions which often go hand in hand with it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
But let’s move on and assume that the data is correct. What does the chart show? It shows data in the tropics only. Not only that, it shows data for the upper atmosphere only. And of course it includes only measurement you can get with balloons or satellites - no surface temperatures.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you read the article carefully, or are familiar with the issue he was addressing. The IPCC created models of what warming wold look like from different sources. The one for CO2 warming predicts a hot spot in the upper atmosphere over the tropics, so is it any surprise that this is the data that was analyzed? What do surface temperatures, and areas other than the tropics have to do with the issue he raised? Absolutely nothing.
Looking at the graph it appears that the satellite measurements have been re-analyzed to show less warming. Hmm… You mean the raw data has been tinkered with? “Adjusted?” Wow! And I thought that was the exclusive domain of the alarmists who are always adjusting surface temperature to show more warming. To be clear, I don’t really object to proper re-analysis of instrumental data, and I have no reason to think this re-analysis is corrupt in any way. But let’s just remember this lesson the next time someone cries “Climategate!”
Click to expand...
Well this is as frail as an argument can get. Had only the reanalyzed data been plotted you might have a semblance of an argument, but since all the data - balloon, satellite, and reanalyses - was shown there’s nothing here at all.
So we have a chart that shows how the models predicted the upper atmosphere over the tropics to have seven times more warming than satellite and balloon readings gave. Michaels goes to claim (without proof) that these projections and actual readings are “key” to the whole theory - that an inaccuracy in this narrow area throws serious doubt over the validity of the model predictions for overall average global temperature. I would like to see that claim supported by data from a friendly, or at least unbiased, source.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t think you understand at all the significance of the argument. It was the IPCC that predicted a hot spot over the tropics at a specific altitude range as being indicative of CO2 warming. The presence of warming, but the absence of the CO2 indicator really ought to mean something, like maybe the models don’t really model the actual climate very well, or if they do then warming is not being caused by CO2.
I eagerly await the enlightenment from my skeptical friends here on these questions.
Click to expand...
I imagine you wouldn’t have been so eager if you understood the thrust of the argument. The IPCC predicted a very specific heat signature for CO2 greenhouse warming - a “hot spot” over the tropics. It isn’t there.
 
Ender said:
The IPCC created models of what warming wold look like from different sources. The one for CO2 warming predicts a hot spot in the upper atmosphere over the tropics…
Click to expand...
You are referring to results that you have not established and are not common knowledge. So if you want to use them in a debate you need to give a citation to where they can be substantiated from a source that we both trust. The article itself I do not consider primary, so either I accept it on authority, or it must be verified by trusted sources that they cite.
Looking at the graph it appears that the satellite measurements have been re-analyzed to show less warming. Hmm… You mean the raw data has been tinkered with? “Adjusted?” Wow! And I thought that was the exclusive domain of the alarmists who are always adjusting surface temperature to show more warming. To be clear, I don’t really object to proper re-analysis of instrumental data, and I have no reason to think this re-analysis is corrupt in any way. But let’s just remember this lesson the next time someone cries “Climategate!”
Click to expand...
Well this is as frail as an argument can get. Had only the reanalyzed data been plotted you might have a semblance of an argument, but since all the data - balloon, satellite, and reanalyses - was shown there’s nothing here at all.
Click to expand...
The IPCC has published the surface temperature readings, but raw and adjusted. So how it that any different?
So we have a chart that shows how the models predicted the upper atmosphere over the tropics to have seven times more warming than satellite and balloon readings gave. Michaels goes to claim (without proof) that these projections and actual readings are “key” to the whole theory - that an inaccuracy in this narrow area throws serious doubt over the validity of the model predictions for overall average global temperature. I would like to see that claim supported by data from a friendly, or at least unbiased, source.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t think you understand at all the significance of the argument.
Click to expand...
I understand it. I just won’t accept it until it’s premises has been proven.
The presence of warming, but the absence of the CO2 indicator really ought to mean something, like maybe the models don’t really model the actual climate very well, or if they do then warming is not being caused by CO2… The IPCC predicted a very specific heat signature for CO2 greenhouse warming - a “hot spot” over the tropics. It isn’t there.
Click to expand...
Even if that is true, you have not shown that the particular form of the CO2 signature predicted is a fatal flaw in the whole model as it applies to global warming generally.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top