Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[CaptainFreedom]

In 10 years I think the MMCCD's will be regarded with the same enthusiasm as holocaust deniers. I don't know 1/10th about it as some of the people in this thread do and some of the quibbles are really getting pathetic. You are a bigger man than I to have the patience to wade through every "but what about" strawman and respond to them. The science is/has catching up with the massive spin being put forth by the largest emissions offenders.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I think anyone who denies the greater than 90% likelihood of human caused global warming is ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

...is willfully ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignorance is why I ask questions. People never give me satisfactory answers though.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
scientists believe that climate change will occur on human time frames, have postulated a mechanism for such a change, and have methods to relate that mechanism to a result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief has nothing to do with it. You should have started your above statement with: Scientists have substantial evidence that.....

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

This is of critical importance. I recently asked a co-worker: "do you believe in evolution?" and he responded: "rephrase the question".

I looked at him puzzled and he said: "belief has nothing to do with it. Either the evidence supports it or it doesn't"

More people should strive to be like him.... and Zeno...and Wacki.

[/ QUOTE ]

And just to be restate it again, I dont think anyone here is denying there is global warming and that there is a human contribution to it. What is questioned is the extent, consequences, the costs/benefits of reducing the human contribution and who should bear whatever costs there are. There is nothing willful about wanting the whole picture before changes are made that have drastic economic consequences.

[Zeno]

Good points Adios.

[ QUOTE ]
Errors can accumulate rapidly. Let's list some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list):


[/ QUOTE ]


First some of the parameters listed are well known and/or constants (earth's wobble, solar flux, gravitational constant). Second there are reasonable estimates for many of the other parameters listed.

That said I made a post years ago when first debating about human influence on global climate change and I was skeptical on some of the model-based predictions and still am. I have used models myself for prediction and know full well the problems and complexities that are encountered. The numerous state parameters for each system can be complicated and errors that can creep in and then be multiplied by iterations can be problematical, but that is well known by all and adjustments can compensate for some of this. But if you look at most peer-reviewed published reports or papers error bars are included, limits circumscribed, assumptions presented, and plus or minus temperatures given etc. If you read the raw papers without the intermediary of the press, which is notorious bad for science reporting, or government agencies or institutions that synthesize badly, or the numerous political agenda organizations; you will get a much better picture of what is really going on as far as research and data figures.

But allowing for all the above, predictive models using computers are not just extremely useful, they are reasonably accurate to a degree that most still misunderstand or misinterpret.

In addition, much data gathering and the conclusions reached that turns out to be good evidence for human influence on climate is not model based.

Skepicism is good but too much skepicism on which others are expert can prove unwise. Sometimes you have to rely on the experts, however uncomforable that personnally makes you feel.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
And just to be restate it again, I dont think anyone here is denying there is global warming and that there is a human contribution to it. What is questioned is the extent, consequences, the costs/benefits of reducing the human contribution and who should bear whatever costs there are. There is nothing willful about wanting the whole picture before changes are made that have drastic economic consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Points. Perhaps another thread should be started addressing the "what should or can we do about human influence on global warming". I would like to point out though that given the nature of climate research and obvious limits to knowledge in general you never really know the "whole picture". And given the probable consequences of inaction, humanity will have to act on incomplete information. This is nothing really new but it does lead to a great difficulty. Very little about the amount of human influence on climate change and what, if anything, can be done about it will be easily decided. And I personally have little faith in the political process to enact anything that will be of practial value.

-Zeno

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think anyone here is denying there is global warming and that there is a human contribution to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think global warming is probably likely but I am not 100% convinced. As to human contribution if there is warming, I am highly skeptical.

Also, anyone who believes in 100 year climate forecasts as having even the slightest bit of credibility is as gullible as someone believing in palm readings, tarot cards, or Ouija boards. We can't even figure out the temperature of the past much less the future. I will restate my challenge from a past SMP thread. Can anyone here predict with certainty what the temperature will be in 1955 one year from now (hint - it keeps changing)? Also, as I have asked before, can anyone point me to unaltered original temperature records for the last 100 years?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't even figure out the temperature of the past much less the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I really need to disprove this or are you going to modify this statement?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, as I have asked before, can anyone point me to unaltered original temperature records for the last 100 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've answered this question (with links) before. Try the national weather service.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't even figure out the temperature of the past much less the future......Do I really need to disprove this or are you going to modify this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a very simple challenge. Give me the exact temperature in 1955 one year from now. If the temperatures are known and the data exists then you couldn't ask for an easier way to make me look foolish. Of course, we both know that the temperatures of the past are adjusted every year.

So, what's the indisputable zero chance of being wrong temperature for 1955 one year from now?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, as I have asked before, can anyone point me to unaltered original temperature records for the last 100 years?......I've answered this question (with links) before. Try the national weather service.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. They don't have it and you have to do better than that. As I have directly pointed out in major studies, they admit directly that the data doesn't exist. Again, here is an easy chance to make me look stupid if I am wrong. But again, we both know that the original unaltered readings for the stations simply do not exist.

[adios]

I've stated many times on this forum that I believe climate science is extremely worthwhile and that climate modeling is equally as worthwhile more or less. I've also stated many times that I believe it's a good idea to err on the side of caution. With that caveat, I'm going to stand by my statement that the predictive value of climate models is unproven. To reiterate again:

unproven does not equal wrong

unproven does not equal right

unproven does not equal worthless


The predictions of climate models vary alot and I'm fairly certain that in 100 years the climate models will be improved alot. For no other reason than the capability of high speed computing will have advanced considerably and there will be more data to evaluate. Modeling the earths climate is a complicated endeavor; climate models are fairly new and thus I believe that as time goes on we'll learn alot more about developing climate models. As I stated before the problem is we may not have 100 years.

[Phil153]

I disagree that they vary a lot. The all go in the same direction and are within a fairly narrow range.

Simple question for both doubters and proponents.

I'm on an earth-sized planet orbiting around a stable star with a global temperature of 10 degrees celcius. The surface is bare and the atmosphere is composed of oxygen and nitrogen. The current CO2 concentration is 300pmm. Ok, here's my question:

If I increase the carbon dioxide level to 450 ppm, how much will the temperature increase?