Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iggypkrebsbach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
iggypkrebsbach said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
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]
Click to expand...
Nice. A mere 100 miles west of us.
I would be curious too. Are there any other comparisons between model predictions and “measured” temps?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. But I suspect that the process of turning a model into a prediction is not a trivial one.
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I don’t want to read anyone else’s opinion on what that source says. I want to read it in the source itself.
Click to expand...
Here it is, the source testimony
Now read it, no deflecting

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf
Click to expand...
Sorry, but is still Christy’s opinion. My objection remains. He pulls together graphs and facts that I cannot verify myself. Therefore I am presented with an opinion I can either accept or not, based on the authority of Christy. I have nothing against Christy. I’m sure he is a fine scientists, as his opening remarks remind us. But there are other scientists, equally qualified, who give very different conclusions. Unless we start with data that everyone trusts, it still comes down to who do you want to believe.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You are referring to results that you have not established and are not common knowledge.
Click to expand...
That they aren’t common knowledge is not surprising inasmuch as it’s not the kind of thing the pro-AGW side really wants publicized. But if you accept the IPCC as a trusted source, then here is their chart of temperature signatures for different sources. Chart C is the one that models well mixed greenhouse gases, and that hot spot you see on the chart is precisely the one you will not see in the data.
The IPCC has published the surface temperature readings, but raw and adjusted. So how it that any different?
Click to expand...
Well, I seriously doubt that, and doubt that you can show an example of it. Then again, all that would prove is that they sometimes behaved appropriately, unlike the many examples where the AGW crowd resisted giving out their data even under subpoena and FOIA requests.
I understand it. I just won’t accept it until it’s premises has been proven.
Click to expand...
What needs to be proven? The IPCC predicted what CO2 warming should look like and the data shows that their predicted signature simply doesn’t exist. This is not complicated. If anything constitutes denial, it is this.
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.
Click to expand...
Apparently there is nothing that could invalidate the theory if the failure of their basic models doesn’t suffice. You could reasonably argue that CO2 is still responsible but scientists don’t know how to identify its effect. Of course that would mean casting aside the claim that the science of atmospheric warming is well understood. That this is the best option the data leaves is I’m sure small consolation.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Sorry, but is still Christy’s opinion. My objection remains. He pulls together graphs and facts that I cannot verify myself. Therefore I am presented with an opinion I can either accept or not, based on the authority of Christy. I have nothing against Christy. I’m sure he is a fine scientists, as his opening remarks remind us. But there are other scientists, equally qualified, who give very different conclusions. Unless we start with data that everyone trusts, it still comes down to who do you want to believe.
Click to expand...
So you opted for more deflection. Every source shared is of another person’s work or opinion.

If you want to dispute what Christy presented, why can’t you find a reputable scientist that disputes what he presented? Since he gave his testimony to the Senate, they must have noticed it.
 
iggypkrebsbach said:
40.png
Theo520:
The folks at SkepticalScience insist the models match measurements

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Click to expand...
Hi Theo,

I checked it out. It would be good to spend some time digesting not only their little article but also the robust and very lengthy commentary to the same. Thanks for the reference.
Click to expand...
That’s what defines truth these days - whatever anonymous or random commenters say after an internet posting.
 
Last edited:
Realize that skepticalscience is very pro establishment. They were the ones who Cooked up the consensus project and the Cook et al study.

they seem to have allowed a very robust debate on the issue of model reliability. I plan to spend some time going through it to see if anything can be learned.
 
Ender said:
…But if you accept the IPCC as a trusted source, then here is their chart of temperature signatures for different sources. Chart C is the one that models well mixed greenhouse gases, and that hot spot you see on the chart is precisely the one you will not see in the data.
Click to expand...
OK, I see the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1 graph (c) as you said. This is the spacial distrubution that is predicted by modeling the forcing of greenhouse gasses, right? Now where is the corresponding data of spacial distribution of warming from actual measured data? Note that looking at temporal distribution over the tropics only is not the same thing. And I thought that was what you were claiming when you said that the actual data shows only 1/7th of the warming predicted by the model. A spacial distribution of actual measured data would allow a side-by-side comparison with graphs (a)-(f) to see which forcing signature the data most resembles. Do you have a source that info?
Apparently there is nothing that could invalidate the theory if the failure of their basic models doesn’t suffice.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you say constitutes a failure of the basic models. All models fail in that they are estimates of the phenomenon they are modeling. Without being quantitative, how can you say the model has failed?
 
The whole concept of using the average of a broad set of models to decide policy also seems highly flawed.

A more scientific approach would be to identify the specific models tracking closer to measurement, then investigating what these models are assuming that is providing different projections.

But for some reason the IPCC like to retain the models that are clearly predicting overwarming.
Theo520 said:
Here is a good one
https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/catholic/original/2X/1/1479c9c06b46bcc790fc6a29da299be538bb9662.png
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
OK, I see the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1 graph © as you said. This is the spacial distrubution that is predicted by modeling the forcing of greenhouse gasses, right? Now where is the corresponding data of spacial distribution of warming from actual measured data? Note that looking at temporal distribution over the tropics only is not the same thing. And I thought that was what you were claiming when you said that the actual data shows only 1/7th of the warming predicted by the model. A spacial distribution of actual measured data would allow a side-by-side comparison with graphs (a)-(f) to see which forcing signature the data most resembles. Do you have a source that info?
Click to expand...
Well I think this is a valid objection, and a chart of spacial distribution of warming created from the actual data compared to the IPCC chart would be most interesting. That said, I think you now recognize the significance of the argument being made about the “hot spot”, as well as the implication of finding the modeling of that region so far off from the actual data.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
OK, I see the “hot spot” in Figure 9.1 graph © as you said. This is the spacial distrubution that is predicted by modeling the forcing of greenhouse gasses, right? Now where is the corresponding data of spacial distribution of warming from actual measured data? Note that looking at temporal distribution over the tropics only is not the same thing. And I thought that was what you were claiming when you said that the actual data shows only 1/7th of the warming predicted by the model. A spacial distribution of actual measured data would allow a side-by-side comparison with graphs (a)-(f) to see which forcing signature the data most resembles. Do you have a source that info?
Click to expand...
Well I think this is a valid objection, and a chart of spacial distribution of warming created from the actual data compared to the IPCC chart would be most interesting. That said, I think you now recognize the significance of the argument being made about the “hot spot”, as well as the implication of finding the modeling of that region so far off from the actual data.
Click to expand...
Oh, I understand the significance of it - if it turns out to be true.
 
This sunspot chart brings back happy memories of cycle 19, shown there as the Modern Maximum, when I was just getting started in ham radio. The radiation from those sunspots made shortwave radio communication possible around the world with a little 25-watt station for most of the day.
 
Last edited:
  1. Define “global warming”
  2. Explain why it is good or bad - or both.
  3. It is both reasonable and prudent to examine the arguments closely, identify the various agendas and then decide.
 
Basically, don’t just rely on appeal to authority?

Quite a novel idea on here…
 
You have demonstrated that you understand the appeal to authority fallacy.

And your responses to me continue to grow weaker…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top