[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by fw102807

Bingo. That is the reason that lots of "studies" for many issues are not totally "fact" and need to be looked at with a little skepticism.

Little Ice Age? No. Big Warming Age? Yes. - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

It should extent to all sides especially anything put out by a certain "news" channel which whenever I see it is mostly talking heads giving their opinions and expounding with extremely faulty logic.

[Abby10]

Originally Posted by fw102807

Bingo. That is the reason that lots of "studies" for many issues are not totally "fact" and need to be looked at with a little skepticism.

Agreed. I find this same thing in my industry. You have to get beyond the ideology and/or marketing of these issues/products if you really want to get to the facts.

Originally Posted by tuccillo

Your two statements highlighted in RED are not true. There have been published papers regarding the impact of the missing solar forcing (part of which is the impact on cloud nucleation from solar effects) as a cause of the over sensitivity of climate models. Essentially, the impact of the missing solar forcing can be up to a watt per square meter - more than enough to explain the over predictions. Climate models have consistently over predicted temperature trends by a factor of two when used in a hindcasting format. This is directly from the IPCC reports when compared with actual measured temperatures. This has been well documented by Christy and Spencer. This should not really be a surprise as it is very difficult to get the clouds correct in the model and if you don't get that right then you have no chance. Also, when you are missing important forcing then you also have no chance. In addition, when the only thing you are looking at is anthropogenic causes then that is what you will find because your funding will dictate that as the result. I have seen this. As I previously stated, in my opinion, climate models are not ready as a tool for setting public policy as they are still in the R&D stage. Climate dynamics are not well understood. The inability to diagnose how much of the recent warming is due to climate cycles and how much is anthropogenically driven is evidence of this. Numerical models make a large number of assumptions due to lack of understanding of physical processes, omission of important physical processes, lack of computer power, and the individual biases, as to what is important, of the developers. I know this because I have been there. In addition, there are a number of parameters that can be tuned in a model to achieve the desired results. The reason for these parameter is a lack of understanding of physical processes and as a way to compensate for errors you cannot explain (often because of incorrect assumptions). Also, your analogs have no applicability to climate science and your graph is hopelessly out of date.

It is a privilege to have someone with your expertise on this forum. This is without a doubt an important issue that would benefit everyone if decisions and policy were based on factual data examined without bias. Just want to thank you for your informative posts on this thread and others in the past.

[blueash]

The specious argument that the huge majority of climate scientists who acknowledge the human contribution to global warming and the likely severe consequences of that warming, are somehow all part of conspiracy to produce false data and lie to the public because they are being paid off by someone to do it is completely laughable. The only certain source of money is the oil and gas industry which openly funds the Heartland Institute to produce reports denying the science of almost everyone else.

Of course first the deniers claimed there was no global warming, claimed the data showing the upward trend was bad data, or outright lies. Screams of fraud about the emails from the Climatic Research Unit, proving that the scientists were making it all up.. but it was a big nothing and proved nothing.

So instead the deniers changed their attack. Instead of saying there was no global warming [that attack failed], they switched to saying it wasn't due to any human causes. Or if it is due to human causes the contribution is so small, or if it is entirely human caused society will not ever change so there is nothing you can do and wouldn't it be great to grow bananas in Canada.

Here is the simple truth. The temperature of both the atmosphere and the oceans is rising. The rise is completely consistent with the models that use predictions of the effects of CO2 from human activity as the major source of the temperature change. No model using sun spots or earth wobbles or clouds or the lack of pirates provides an explanation of what has been clearly and undeniably seen over the last 50 years.

As to my graph being "hopelessly out of date" as it only goes to about 2012. Here are links to several more recent reports all of which extend the data and show exactly the same conclusion.. the mainstream climate scientists predictions have been accurate.


UNFCC, ScienceNordic, American Geophysical Union Harvard, Guardian , The US government,


Worth noting once again in this Sept 2018 report produced by the Trump administration..

Those who deny the scientific evidence of human-caused global warming turned the slowdown into a slogan: “Global warming stopped in 1998.” In scientific journals and assessment reports, climate experts described the episode as a “pause” or “hiatus” in the previous decades’ rapid warming: they knew it wouldn’t last.
Not only was 1998-2012 the warmest 15-year period on record at the time, but greenhouse gases continued to climb to new record highs, and other climate indicators continued to show the impacts of long-term, global-scale warming: subsurface ocean heating, global sea level rise, the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and record-low Arctic sea ice extent.

This report even includes, for the deniers, specific comments about sunspots, volcanoes, El Ninos, and lots of graphs and charts, again showing how accurate the climate models have been.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by blueash

The specious argument that the huge majority of climate scientists who acknowledge the human contribution to global warming and the likely severe consequences of that warming, are somehow all part of conspiracy to produce false data and lie to the public because they are being paid off by someone to do it is completely laughable.

The only certain source of money is the oil and gas industry which openly funds the Heartland Institute to produce reports denying the science of almost everyone else...<Snip

Yep!

[tuccillo]

You are wrong about the fidelity of the models - they have repeated demonstrated that they are overly sensitive and over predict temperatures by about 2x. This has been demonstrated by Christy and Spencer and Curry and other independent sources. As I already stated, the contribution from anthropogenic sources and climatic trends to the recent temperature increases can not be determined. Catastrophic temperature increases require positive feedbacks from the slight amount of warming from additional CO2 and it has not been shown that this is fully understood or can be modeled with fidelity. I will state this again, increases in CO2 alone are incapable of increasing the temperatures significantly and the feedbacks are not fully understood. You can continue to believe what you want and seek out sources to support your theories but there is ample, independent evidence to support the fact that we don't know whether there is a problem or not. Part of the problem is the recent surface temperature record and homogenization. Fortunately we also have satellite temperatures. This is the position of numerous, independent, well regarded researchers. Those of us who have actually developed models, as opposed to those who get their information from biased sources, understand this. You can prattle on about deniers and tabloid topics all you want. I only care about the science. Ultimately we may find that numerically modeling the climate is an intractable problem just like usable, deterministic weather simulations past 15 days may also prove to be an intractable problem. I prefer to have discussions with people who actually worked in this discipline so don't feel the need to respond.

Originally Posted by blueash

The specious argument that the huge majority of climate scientists who acknowledge the human contribution to global warming and the likely severe consequences of that warming, are somehow all part of conspiracy to produce false data and lie to the public because they are being paid off by someone to do it is completely laughable. The only certain source of money is the oil and gas industry which openly funds the Heartland Institute to produce reports denying the science of almost everyone else.

Of course first the deniers claimed there was no global warming, claimed the data showing the upward trend was bad data, or outright lies. Screams of fraud about the emails from the Climatic Research Unit, proving that the scientists were making it all up.. but it was a big nothing and proved nothing.

So instead the deniers changed their attack. Instead of saying there was no global warming [that attack failed], they switched to saying it wasn't due to any human causes. Or if it is due to human causes the contribution is so small, or if it is entirely human caused society will not ever change so there is nothing you can do and wouldn't it be great to grow bananas in Canada.

Here is the simple truth. The temperature of both the atmosphere and the oceans is rising. The rise is completely consistent with the models that use predictions of the effects of CO2 from human activity as the major source of the temperature change. No model using sun spots or earth wobbles or clouds or the lack of pirates provides an explanation of what has been clearly and undeniably seen over the last 50 years.

As to my graph being "hopelessly out of date" as it only goes to about 2012. Here are links to several more recent reports all of which extend the data and show exactly the same conclusion.. the mainstream climate scientists predictions have been accurate.


UNFCC, ScienceNordic, American Geophysical Union Harvard, Guardian , The US government,


Worth noting once again in this Sept 2018 report produced by the Trump administration..




This report even includes, for the deniers, specific comments about sunspots, volcanoes, El Ninos, and lots of graphs and charts, again showing how accurate the climate models have been.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

The question is not whether climate change is real. It has been proven that there has been a very slight warming of the earth's average temperature.

The questions are has man caused it? It seems that man is partly responsible but to what degree is up in the air.

The second question is can man change it or mitigate it? Al Gore admitted that even if we did everything that he and his organization recommend it would not make a significant change. By the way, Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars because of climate change.

The third and most important question is, to what degree will this affect the earth and those living on it? Is this change in temperature catastrophic or is it something that will barely affect us? The answer to that is still up for debate. As Johnny said, many of the computer models have been wrong. Polar ice is not melting to the degree that was predicted. There are more polar bears now than there were in the 1980s. According to many of the alarmists, we should all be dead by now.

One more question is that if the warming is not catastrophic, are we willing to stop using fossil fuels and whatever else is contributing to the warming. The world runs on fossil fuels. They are an efficient and inexpensive fuel that we all depend on for transportation, heating, production and food. Everything that we touch or eat has gotten to us by fossil fuels. Can the entire world make a change to solar power? What would that take? How long would it take? Would everyone in the world agree to it? And would the total changeover result in a reduction in temperature that would change anything? This goes back to how much of this is being caused by man and how much is caused by volcanoes and cow farts.

Is climate change settled science? Yes and no. Yes, 97% of all scientists agree that there has been a slight warming of the earth. But they do not agree on all of these other questions.

And I have to repeat, Al Gore admitted that no matter what we do, we will not stop global warming. If you think that riding a bicycle to work is going to have any effect on anything, you're kidding yourself. In order to have any effect on the earth's temperature the entire world would have to stop using fossil fuels and that's not going to happen.

We as humans just have to realize that number one, we don't know everything and number two, there are some things that we just cannot do anything about.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? - YouTube

[PersonalChoice]

Great documentary which aired on the BBC about ten years ago, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The Great Global Warming Swindle - Full Documentary HD - YouTube