My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Overdog

The problem is that the whole Global Warming Apocalypse thing is based on computer models. Climate is a chaotic system. The Computer models we have simply do not have all the initial conditions. You can't trust them. It's just that simple.

And they successfully model past climates, how exactly? Did they just throw a bunch of garbage into a bin, shake it up, and wind up with successful reconstructions of past climates by chance?

Show me which model specifically is wrong and where. Until then, you are waving your hands about and expecting the rest of us to take you seriously.


The fact is, the models work, and we've covered this exact claim repeatedly in this very thread.


U. study substantiates computer models for global warming — Department of Meteorology

Computer models used to predict climate change are remarkably accurate when measured against actual weather, according to a new study by University of Utah meteorologists. The findings are expected to boost the role of such models in shaping public policy to confront the menacing specter of global warming, generally believed to be caused by rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon from fossil fuel-burning industries.

<...>

The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.

Another important aspect of the research is that climate models built in the U.S. are now some of the best models worldwide.

AMS Online Journals - How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?

Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging toward a level of accuracy that is similar to observation-based analyses of the atmosphere.

Further, you are making a strawman by suggesting that the ONLY thing we have to go on for these conclusions is computer models. I think we can all pretty well reject that assertion on its face.

We know the role of carbon in the atmosphere. We know our contributions of carbon to the atmosphere. We know many of the domino effects of an increasing average global climate.

Burying your head in the sand or taking your ball and going home isn't going to save you on this one.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

And they successfully model past climates, how exactly? Did they just throw a bunch of garbage into a bin, shake it up, and wind up with successful reconstructions of past climates by chance?

Which model predicted the ten year cooling trend?

I'm saying we don't don't know the initial conditions for a chaotic system. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[Grains]

The Great Global Warming Swindle was a film where they touched on this. These guys had a pretty interesting study where they talk about the influence of water vapor on climate change

"Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming."

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Overdog

I'm saying we don't don't know the initial conditions for a chaotic system. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

I ask again. Which models specifically are you challenging?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Grains

The Great Global Warming Swindle was a film where they touched on this. These guys had a pretty interesting study where they talk about the influence of water vapor on climate change

"Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming."

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you present data which has been proven false on purpose, or are you truly just badly uninformed on the topic?


The Great Global Warming Swindle" has been shown to have quite a few problems, and demonstrated that it is itself a swindle.


This link does a pretty good job of showing why:

The Great Global Warming Swindle Swindle - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science


...and also here:

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle


I particularly like this study published in Proceedings of The Royal Society in June 2007 which speaks specifically against the root of the claims being used by the GGW Swindle (emphasis mine):

The Royal Society - Article

There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

Check your sources, kids. Not all of them are valid.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I ask again. Which models specifically are you challenging?

All of them.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Overdog

All of them.

What parts? The data I've seen has been accurate.

Would it have been better or more understandable had I said "precisely" which models instead of "specifically?"

[Grains]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Do you present data which has been proven false on purpose, or are you truly just badly uninformed on the topic?

This is the first time I came across this particular documentary. The links you provided were informative. I didn't see any reference in your links though that disproved their theory on water vapor.

[REASON]

I find myself constantly amazed at how people pick and choose when science deserves credibility.

"Hey, science is great for everything, except Evolution. I don't believe in that so science has it all wrong on that one."

"No. Science is right on the money with Evolution. It's the Big Bang that's all wrong."

"No, no, you fools. Evolution and the Big Bang are excellent theories, but Quantum Mechanics?.....Forget about it."

"No, no, no, you guys are all wrong. Science has developed some solid, well supported theories with all of those topics. But when it comes to Global Climate Change, this science is just a big hoax."


I think it's worthwhile for each of us to try and understand why we pick and choose what scientific research we find legitimate. I'm not saying that we should blindly follow science, or that we should never challenge an accepted theory. I just find it interesting how people will resist certain areas of scientific research, even in the face of some pretty overwhelming evidence.

In these instances, I tend to think that the method is not the problem.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Grains

I didn't see any reference in your links though that disproved their theory on water vapor.

Water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for up to 2 weeks, whereas CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for more than a century.

Also, water vapour accounts for only a tiny fraction of the issue, as it's not a radiative forcing, but is a feedback. You can't successfully argue against what you don't understand.

'Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor' | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.


If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

RealClimate

Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the principle absorber of this radiation (and acknowledged as such by everybody). But exactly how important is it? In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal).

Stoat: Water vapour is not the dominant greenhouse gas