My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Turtly, I agree we don't know much about underwater volcanoes. However, we have models that very closely match past performance, how did those get so close?

I have a thread on them: Underwater Volcanism Feel free to contribute.

Originally Posted by Zythryn

I have also seen models that take into account natural forcings only. These show past trends pretty darn closely until the 1930's or 40s. Then they start going off target. Models that take into account only manmade forcings also don't end up being very accurate. Models that take both natural and manmade forcings fit pretty darn close.
Once you get more data on those underwater volcanoes (how many active ones, how much CO2 they put out and how much of that CO2 reaches the atmosphere) please do let us know. I am very interested in that data.

By all means conduct your own search.

Originally Posted by Zythryn

As documented in the Wiki link you provided Turtle, climate models have improved quite a bit since 2000 (when the reference Nature letter appeared).

Search the phrase 'climate model errors' and you will find plenty that is more recent.

The point has been laid that even a slight increase in the rate of CO2 increase/decrease can have profound consequences, and yet other 'slight' changes -such as underwater volcanism - get poo-pooed as insignificant. Sounds illogical to me.

[goku]

global warming is just a clever way to gain control over the public.
the EPA places regulations on car companies to make the engines burn more fuel per mile. example, the ford powerstroke diesel. anyone can purchase a chip that will give the engine more power and better fuel economy, but it also voids the warranty.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Turtle

The point has been laid that even a slight increase in the rate of CO2 increase/decrease can have profound consequences, and yet other 'slight' changes -such as underwater volcanism - get poo-pooed as insignificant. Sounds illogical to me.

It does to me too.

With deference to your Underwater Volcanism thread, do you have any opinions as to why climatologists and other related scientific contributers to the IPCC, and prior work, have minimized or rejected recent underwater volcanism as an important contributing factor to the surge in global warming?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by REASON

It does to me too.

With deference to your Underwater Volcanism thread, do you have any opinions as to why climatologists and other related scientific contributers to the IPCC, and prior work, have minimized or rejected recent underwater volcanism as an important contributing factor to the surge in global warming?

Yes; the extent of current and historical underwater volcanism is relatively unknown. Can't be figuring in stuff you know nothing about, now can you?

PS Just what are the minimized/rejected values for underwater volcanism by IPCC et al?

[Turtle]

Underwater volcanism notwithstanding, let's get back to the accuracy of modeling.

Roy W. Spencer: Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat

Originally Posted by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

...1. INCOMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF A COMPLEX PROBLEM: All climate modelers must build their models based upon our current understanding of how the climate system works. Therefore, if there is some important - but as yet poorly understood - process that they are missing, they will all tend to make the same error. Past evidence for this is the tendency for climate models to drift away from a realistic climate over time. This suggests that it takes a higher level of understanding to capture the intricate processes that stabilize the climate system.
...
December, 2007 RESEARCH UPDATE: We have received back from peer review our article showing how natural climate variability has probably been misinterpreted, at least partially, by researchers who claim to see evidence of positive feedback (which would make global warming worse) in the climate system. Our article was carefully reviewed by two of the world's leading climate model experts who both agreed that we have raised a legitimate issue that has been previously ignored. Those reviewers even developed their own simple climate models to demonstrate the effect to themselves. It is still not known how much of an effect this is, but accounting for it would logically reduce estimates of how much global warming can be blamed on mankind. ...

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Can't be figuring in stuff you know nothing about, now can you?

PS Just what are the minimized/rejected values for underwater volcanism by IPCC et al?

I don't know that there is anything minimized or rejected. I probably should have included "omitted" in my question. I guess I just assumed it was minimized or rejected because it seems like a significant oversight to omit underwater volcanism as a potential contributing factor.

The first part of your answer would explain it if that's the case.

[InfiniteNow]

Turtle,

You clearly haven't been reading the information being shared, either the links or the videos, and you continue to cherry pick data which supports your worldview.

Tells us. Why are THOSE studies more relevant to you than all of the others?

Also, what is it precisely that gives you the audacity to assume that all of the thousands of scientists who have studied this issue since the 1950s have somehow missed this mysterious data you seem to cling to?

Give me a fucking break...


We couldn't prove that cigarettes didn't cause cancer, but they couldn't prove that they did.

[freeztar]

That's not necessary IN.

As I stated in the CO2 acquittal thread, Turtle's argument about underwater volcanoes might hold some water (pun intended ). He brings up a good point that we should learn more about the emitters and use that data to better update the models we have.

On the other hand, I believe that Turtle's dismissal of climate models based purely on the lack of data concerning underwater volcanism is a bit over the top. I agree with Turtle that we need to understand this better, but I disagree that this invalidates the models we have presently. Sure, the models are flawed. Is that not intrinsic to any model? (hence it is a model, and not the real thing)

The science of climatology, and particularly those that build/test/run climate models, should not be dismissed so easily. It is astonishing to see the progress in this field.

The models will never be perfect, but neither are we.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

... I believe that Turtle's dismissal of climate models based purely on the lack of data concerning underwater volcanism is a bit over the top. I agree with Turtle that we need to understand this better, but I disagree that this invalidates the models we have presently. Sure, the models are flawed. Is that not intrinsic to any model? (hence it is a model, and not the real thing)

The science of climatology, and particularly those that build/test/run climate models, should not be dismissed so easily. It is astonishing to see the progress in this field.

The models will never be perfect, but neither are we.

I have never based my skepticism of the models purely on underwater volcanism, and in fact my skepticism of the models lies primarily in the mathematics of complex systems. The argument that just because the models have improved that they are sufficient for basing political and economic actions intended to influence the climate is vacuous. If modeling complex systems is as accurate as you imply, such models would be making billions for people trading at the stock exchange. What kind of improvement is going from very bad to moderately bad?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I have never based my skepticism of the models purely on underwater volcanism, and in fact my skepticism of the models lies primarily in the mathematics of complex systems.

Fair enough, please excuse my use of the word "purely".

The argument that just because the models have improved that they are sufficient for basing political and economic actions intended to influence the climate is vacuous.

I made no assertion of their sufficiency. I was merely pointing out that they are constantly improving. I can't claim to understand the mathematics involved in these models, but I do understand math to a certain degree, so it would be great if you could point out the shortcomings of the models in accordance with complex systems.

If modeling complex systems is as accurate as you imply, such models would be making billions for people trading at the stock exchange.

How do you know that's not happening?

With Science, it is usually baby steps. We will probably never be able to perfectly model Chaos. Should we stop trying?
Or better yet, will our curiosity allow us to stop?

What kind of improvement is going from very bad to moderately bad?

Moving from "very bad" to "moderately bad" *is* an improvement (objectively speaking).